Previous studies have suggested the effect of linguistic information on voice perception (e.g., the language-familiarity effect [LFE]). However, it remains unclear which type of specific information in speech contributes to voice perception, including acoustic, phonological, lexical, and semantic information. It is also underexamined whether the roles of these different types of information are modulated by the experimental paradigm (speaker discrimination vs. speaker identification). In this study, we conducted two experiments to investigate these issues regarding LFEs. Experiment 1 examined the roles of acoustic and phonological information in speaker discrimination and identification with forward and time-reversed Mandarin and Indonesian sentences. Experiment 2 further identified the roles of phonological, lexical, and semantic information with forward, word-scrambled, and reconstructed (consisting of pseudo-Mandarin words) Mandarin and forward Indonesian sentences. For Mandarin-only participants, in Experiment 1, speaker discrimination was more accurate for forward than reversed sentences, but there was no LFE in either sentence. Speaker identification was also more accurate for forward than reversed sentences, whereas there was an LFE for forward sentences. In Experiment 2, speaker discrimination was better for word-scrambled than reconstructed Mandarin sentences. Speaker identification was more accurate for forward and word-scrambled Mandarin sentences but less accurate for Mandarin reconstructed and forward Indonesian sentences. In general, the pattern of the results for Indonesian learners was the same as that for Mandarin-only speakers. These results suggest that different kinds of information support speaker discrimination and identification in native and unfamiliar languages. The LFE in speaker identification depends on both phonological and lexical information.
BrickerP. D.PruzanskyS. (1966). Effects of stimulus content and duration on talker identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 40(6), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910246
7.
CraikF. I.KirsnerK. (1974). The effect of speaker’s voice on word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400413
8.
FecherN.JohnsonE. K. (2018a). Effects of language experience and task demands on talker recognition by children and adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(4), 2409–2418. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5032199
9.
FecherN.JohnsonE. K. (2018b). The native-language benefit for talker identification is robust in 7.5-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1911–1920. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000555
10.
FecherN.JohnsonE. K. (2019). By 4.5 months, linguistic experience already affects infants’ talker processing abilities. Child Development, 90(5), 1535–1543. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13280
11.
FengG.GanZ.WangS.WongP.ChandrasekaranB. (2017). Task-general and acoustic-invariant neural representation of speech categories in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 28(9), 3241–3254. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx195
12.
FlemingD.GiordanoB. L.CaldaraR.BelinP. (2014). A language-familiarity effect for speaker discrimination without comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(38), 13795–13798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1401383111
13.
GabrieliJ. D. E. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science, 325(5938), 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171999
14.
GarridoL.EisnerF.McGettiganC.StewartL.SauterD.HanleyJ. R.SchweinbergerS. R.WarrenJ. D.DuchaineB. (2009). Developmental phonagnosia: A selective deficit of vocal identity recognition. Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.003
15.
GogginJ. P.ThompsonC. P.StrubeG.SimentalL. R. (1991). The role of language familiarity in voice identification. Memory & Cognition, 19(5), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199567
16.
GoldingerS. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–1183. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.22.5.1166
17.
HalleM. (1985). Speculations about the representation of words in memory. In FromkinV. A. (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics (pp. 101–114). Academic Press.
18.
JohnsonE. K.WestrekE.NazziT.CutlerA. (2011). Infant ability to tell voices apart rests on language experience. Developmental Science, 14(5), 1002–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01052.x
19.
KreitewolfJ.GaudrainE.Von KriegsteinK. (2014). A neural mechanism for recognizing speech spoken by different speakers. NeuroImage, 91, 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.005
20.
KriegsteinK. V.GiraudA. L. (2004). Distinct functional substrates along the right superior temporal sulcus for the processing of voices. NeuroImage, 22(2), 948–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.020
21.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LaverJ.TrudgillP. (1979). Phonetic and linguistic markers in speech. In SchererK. R.GilesH. (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 1–32). Cambridge University Press.
24.
LeviS. V. (2018). Another bilingual advantage? Perception of talker-voice information. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000153
25.
LeviS. V. (2019). Methodological considerations for interpreting the Language Familiarity Effect in talker processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(2), e1483. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1483
26.
LiP.ZhangF.YuA.ZhaoX. (2019). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 938–944. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001153
27.
LickliderJ. C. (1952). On the process of speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24(6), 590–594. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906938
McGettiganC.ScottS. K. (2012). Cortical asymmetries in speech perception: What’s wrong, what’s right and what’s left?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.006
30.
McLaughlinD. E.CarterY. D.ChengC. C.PerrachioneT. K. (2019). Hierarchical contributions of linguistic knowledge to talker identification: Phonological versus lexical familiarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1088–1107. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01778-5
MeissnerC. A.BrighamJ. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3
33.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 47(4), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03210878
34.
OrenaA. J.TheodoreR. M.PolkaL. (2015). Language exposure facilitates talker learning prior to language comprehension, even in adults. Cognition, 143, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.002
35.
PalmeriT. J.GoldingerS. D.PisoniD. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.309
36.
PerrachioneT. K. (2019). Recognizing speakers across languages. In FrühholzS.BelinP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of voice perception (pp. 515–538). Oxford University Press.
37.
PerrachioneT. K.ChiaoJ. Y.WongP. C. (2010). Asymmetric cultural effects on perceptual expertise underlie an own-race bias for voices. Cognition, 114(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.012
38.
PerrachioneT. K.Del TufoS. N.GabrieliJ. D. (2011). Human voice recognition depends on language ability. Science, 333(6042), 595. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207327
PerrachioneT. K.FurbeckK. T.ThurstonE. J. (2019). Acoustic and linguistic factors affecting perceptual dissimilarity judgments of voices. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146(5), 3384–3399. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5126697
41.
PerrachioneT. K.PierrehumbertJ. B.WongP. (2009). Differential neural contributions to native-and foreign-language talker identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1950–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1037/a0015869
42.
PerrachioneT. K.WongP. C. (2007). Learning to recognize speakers of a non-native language: Implications for the functional organization of human auditory cortex. Neuropsychologia, 45(8), 1899–1910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.015
43.
PoeppelD.IdsardiW. J.Van WassenhoveV. (2008). Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1071–1086. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2160
44.
RemezR. E.FellowesJ. M.NagelD. S. (2007). On the perception of similarity among talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(6), 3688–3696. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2799903
45.
SchneiderW.EschmanA.ZuccolottoA. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
46.
SheffertS. M.PisoniD. B.FellowesJ. M.RemezR. E. (2002). Learning to recognize talkers from natural, sinewave, and reversed speech samples. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1447–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.6.1447
Van LanckerD. R.KreimanJ.CummingsJ. (1989). Voice perception deficits: Neuroanatomical correlates of phonagnosia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(5), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638908400923
49.
Van LanckerD. R.KreimanJ.WickensT. D. (1985). Familiar voice recognition: Patterns and parameters Part II: Recognition of rate-altered voices. Journal of Phonetics, 13(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30724-7
50.
Von KriegsteinK.SmithD. R. R.PattersonR. D.KiebelS. J.GriffithsT. D. (2010). How the human brain recognizes speech in the context of changing speakers. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(2), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2742-09.2010
WintersS. J.LeviS. V.PisoniD. B. (2008). Identification and discrimination of bilingual talkers across languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(6), 4524–4538. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2913046
53.
XieX.MyersE. B. (2015). General language ability predicts talker identification. In NoellD. C.DaleR.WarlaumontA. S.YoshimiJ.MatlockT.JenningsC. D.MaglioP. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 2697–2702). Cognitive Science Society.
YoungA. W.FrühholzS.SchweinbergerS. R. (2020). Face and voice perception: Understanding commonalities and differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.001
56.
YuK.ChenY.YinS.LiL.WangR. (2022). The roles of tonal type and lexicality in the hemisphere lateralization for lexical tone processing: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 177, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.05.001
57.
ZarateJ. M.TianX.WoodsK. J.PoeppelD. (2015). Multiple levels of linguistic and paralinguistic features contribute to voice recognition. Scientific Reports, 5, 11475. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11475
58.
ZhangC.PughK. R.MenclW. E.MolfeseP. J.FrostS. J.MagnusonJ. S.PengG.WangW.-S. Y. (2016). Functionally integrated neural processing of linguistic and talker information: An event-related fMRI and ERP study. NeuroImage, 124, 536–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.064
59.
ZhangW. (2010). Indonesian conversation. World Publishing Guangdong Corporation. (In Chinese)
