The current study examined whether fine-grained phonetic detail (voice onset time (VOT)) of one segment (/p/ or /k/) generalizes to a different segment (/t/) within the same natural class. Two primes were constructed to exploit the natural variation of VOT: a velar stop followed by a high vowel (keen) resulting in a naturally long VOT and a labial stop followed by a low vowel (pan) resulting in a naturally shorter VOT. Two experiments were conducted, one in which the speakers produced both the prime and the target, and a second in which the speakers heard the primes and then produced the targets. In Experiment 1, VOTs for initial /t/ were shorter following pan than following keen. In Experiment 2 where participants heard the primes, priming was found only when the primes had unexpected relative VOT values (short for keen and long for pan). These results provide evidence for cross-segmental generalization of phonetic detail and also suggest that natural, within-category variability is encoded during language processing.
AndruskiJ. E.BlumsteinS. E.BurtonM. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163–187.
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
4.
BabelM. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 117–189.
5.
Baese-BerkM.GoldrickM. (2009). Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(4), 527–554.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Retrieved from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2008). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
8.
ByrdD. (1993). 54,000 American stops. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 83, 97–116.
9.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.
10.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B. (2004). Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Language and Speech, 47(3), 207–239.
11.
CrystalT. H.HouseA. S. (1988). The duration of American-English stop consonants: An overview. Journal of Phonetics, 16(3), 285–294.
12.
DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D.GaskellM. G. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 218–244.
13.
FineA. B.JaegerT. F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 578–591.
14.
GoldingerS. D. (1997). Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
15.
GoldingerS. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279.
16.
GoldrickM.BlumsteinS. E. (2006). Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 649–683.
17.
GussenhovenC. (2007). A vowel height split explained: Compensatory listening and speaker control. In ColeJ.HualdeJ. I. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 145–172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
18.
HoustonD. M. (1999). The role of talker variability in infant word representations. PhD Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
19.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
20.
JaegerT. F.SniderN. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. Paper presented at the The 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08).
21.
KlattD. H. (1975). Voice onset time, frication, and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 686–706.
22.
LiskerL.AbramsonA. S. (1967). Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech, 10, 1–28.
23.
LiskerL.AbramsonA. S. (1970). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 563–567). Prague: Academia.
24.
LivelyS. E.LoganJ. S.PisoniD. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3), 1242–1255.
25.
LoganJ. S.LivelyS. E.PisoniD. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(2), 874–886.
26.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.
27.
McMurrayB.TanenhausM. K.AslinR. N. (2006). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86, B33-B42.
28.
MillerJ. L. (1977). Nonindependence of feature processing in initial consonants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20(3), 519–528.
29.
MillerJ. L. (2001). Mapping from acoustic signal to phonetic category: Internal category structure, context effects and speeded categorisation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 683–690.
30.
MillerR. M.SanchezK.RosenblumL. D. (2010). Alignment to visual speech information. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1614–1625.
31.
NamyL. L.NygaardL. C.SauerteigD. (2002). Gender differences in vocal accommodation: The role of perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(4), 422–432.
32.
NeareyT. M.RochetB. L. (1994). Effects of place of articulation and vowel context on VOT production and perception for French and English stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 24, 1–18.
33.
NielsenK. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 132–142.
34.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
PortR. F.RotunnoR. (1979). Relation between voice-onset time and vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 654–662.
36.
RichtsmeierP. T.GerkenL.GoffmanL.HoganT. (2009). Statistical frequency in perception affects children’s lexical production. Cognition, 111, 372–377.
37.
RostG. C.McMurrayB. (2009). Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning. Developmental Science, 12(2), 339–349.
38.
SanchezK.MillerR. M.RosenblumL. D. (2010). Visual influences on alignment to voice onset time. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 262–272.
39.
ShockleyK.SabadiniL.FowlerC. A. (2004). Imitation in shadowing words. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 422–429.
40.
SinghL. (2008). Influences of high and low variability on infant word recognition. Cognition, 106, 833–870.
41.
SmitA. B.BernthalJ. E. (1983). Voicing contrasts and their phonological implications in the speech of articulation-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing research, 26, 486–500.
YavaşM. (2009). Factors influencing the VOT of English long lag stops in interlanguage phonology. In WatkinsM. A.ReuberA. S.BaptistaB. O. (Eds.), Recent research in second language phonetics/phonology: Perception and production (pp. 244–255). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
44.
YuenI.DavisM. H.BrysbaertM.RastleK. (2010). Activation of articulatory information in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(2), 592–597.
