The identification of English consonants in quiet and multi-talker babble was examined for three groups of young adult listeners: Chinese in China, Chinese in the USA (CNU), and English-native listeners. As expected, native listeners outperformed non-native listeners. The two non-native groups had similar performance in quiet, whereas CNU listeners performed significantly better than Chinese in China listeners in babble. It is concluded that CNU listeners may benefit from English experience, for example, better use of temporal variation in noise and better capacity against informational masking, to perceive English consonants better in babble. Possible explanations regarding the differential noise effect on the three groups are discussed.
ANSI (2010), Specification for Audiometers, ANSI Report No. S3.6-2010. American National Standards Institute, New York.
2.
AntoniouM.WongP. C. M.WangS. (2015). The effect of intensified language exposure on accommodating talker variability. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 58, 722–727.
3.
BestC. T.1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 171–204). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
4.
BestC.StrangeW. (1992) Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305–331.
5.
BestC.TylerM. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In BohnO.-S.MunroM. J., Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
6.
BradlowA. R.AlexanderJ. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339–2349.
7.
BroersmaM.ScharenborgO. (2010) Native and non-native listeners’ perception of English consonants in different types of noise. Speech Communication, 52, 980–995.
8.
BrungartD. S.SimpsonB. D.EricsonM. A.ScottK. R. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 2527–2538.
9.
CookeM.Garcia LecumberriM. L.BarkerJ. (2008). The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 414–427.
10.
CutlerA.Garcia LecumberriM. L.CookeM. (2008). Consonant identification in noise by native and non-native listeners: Effects of local context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 1264–1268.
11.
CutlerA.WeberA.SmitsR.CooperN. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3668–3678.
12.
DuanmuS. (2007). The Phonology of Standard Chinese, 2nd edition.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
DurlachN. I.MasonC. R.KiddG.Jr.ArbogastT. L.ColburnH. S.Shinn-CunninghamB. G. (2003) Note on informational masking (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2984–2987.
14.
FlegeJ. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: theory, findings and problems. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York.
15.
FlegeJ. E.BohnO. S.JangS. (1997). The effect of experience on non-native subjects’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.
16.
FlegeJ.TakagiN.MannV. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1161–1173.
17.
Garcia LecumberriM. L.CookeM. (2006). Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2445–2454.
GuanJ.LiuC.TaoS.MiL.WangW.DongQ. (2015a). Vowel Identification in temporal-modulated noise for native and non-native listeners: Effect of language experience. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138, 1670–1677.
20.
GuanJ.LiuC.TaoS.LiM.WangW.DongQ. (2015b). Sentence recognition in temporal modulated noise for native and non-native listeners: effect of language experience. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137, 2379.
21.
JinS-H.LiuC. (2012). English sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, EL391–EL397.
22.
JinS-H.LiuC. (2014). Intelligibility of American English vowels and consonants spoken by international students in the US. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 238–253.
23.
KalikowD. N.StevensK. M.ElliottL. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337–1351.
24.
LiM.WangW.TaoS.DongQ.GuanJ.LiuC. (2016) Mandarin Chinese vowel-plus-tone identification in noise: Effects of language experience. Hearing Research, 331, 109–118.
25.
LiuC.JinS.-H. (2011). Audibility of American-English vowels produced by English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native speakers in long-term speech-shaped noise. Hearing Research, 282, 49–55.
26.
LiuC.JinS.-H. (2013). Intelligibility of American English vowels of native and non-native speakers in quiet and speech-shaped noise. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 206–218.
27.
LiuC.TaoS.WangW.DongQ. (2012). Formant discrimination of speech and non-speech sounds for English and Chinese listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, EL189–EL195.
28.
MiL.TaoS.WangW.DongQ.JinS-H.LiuC. (2013). English vowel identification in long-term speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English and Chinese listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, EL 391–EL397.
29.
NormanJ. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
RogersC.ListerJ.FeboD.BesingJ.AbramsH. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 465–485.
31.
StrangeW. (2007). Cross-language phonetic similarity of vowels: Theoretical and methodological issues. In BohnO.-S.MunroM. J., Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 35–55). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
32.
StrangeW. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP)of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 456–466.
33.
StuartA.ZhangJ.SwinkS. (2010) Reception thresholds for sentence in quiet and noise for monolingual English and Bilingual Mandarin-English listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 239–248.
34.
StudebakerG. (1985). A “rationalized” arcsine transform. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 56–64.
35.
YamadaR.TohkuraY. (1991) Age effect on acquisition of non-native phonemes: perception of English /r/ and /l/ for native speakers of Japanese. In Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, August 19–24, 1991, Aix-en-Provence, France.
36.
WangH. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Mutual intelligibility of Chinese, Dutch and American speakers of English. PhD dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
37.
WatsonC. S. (2005). Some comments on informational masking. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 91, 502–512.
