Phonemic restoration was studied using a version of Samuel's (1981a) psychophysical paradigm. We examined the influence of specific acoustic correlates of voicing and place of articulation on phonemic restoration (d') and response bias (Beta). The influence of a higher-level, phonotactic constraint was also examined. All of the stimuli were presented in both auditory-only and auditory-visual conditions, allowing the investigation of potential benefits of vision on phonemic restoration. The results support the predictions of an interactive-activation model, combining both top-down and bottom-up factors. As predicted, voicing and place of articulation significantly affected d': Voiceless stop consonants received greater restoration than voiced stops, and alveolar stops were less restorable than bilabial and velar stops. The phonotactic, top-down constraint affected neither d' nor Beta. Visual information, however, appeared to reduce the bias to report an item as intact.
Bashford, J.A., and Warren, R.M. (1987). Multiple phonemic restorations follow the rules for auditory induction. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 114–121.
2.
Benguerel, A.P., and Pichora-Fuller, M. (1982). Coarticulation effects in lipreading. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 600–607.
3.
Blumstein, S.E., and Stevens, K.N. (1979). Acoustic invariance in speech production: Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1001–1017.
4.
Blumstein, S.E., and Stevens, K.N. (1980). Perceptual invariance and onset spectra for stop consonants in different vowel environments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 648–662.
5.
Breeuwer, M., and Plomp, R. (1986). Speechreading supplemented with auditorily presented speech parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 481–499.
6.
Dodd, B. (1977). The role of vision in the perception of speech. Perception, 6, 31–40.
7.
Easton, R.D., and Basala, M. (1982). Perceptual dominance during lipreading. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 562–570.
8.
Elman, J.L., and Mcclelland, J.L. (1988). Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 143–165.
9.
Erber, N.P. (1972). Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual recognition of consonants by children with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 413–422.
10.
Fisher, C.G. (1968). Confusions among visually perceived consonants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 796–804.
11.
Fry, D.B. (1979). The Physics of Speech.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Green, K.P., and Kuhl, P.K. (1989). The role of visual information in the processing of place and manner features in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 34–42.
13.
Ladefoged, P. (1982). A Course in Phonetics.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14.
Liberman, A.M. (1982). On finding that speech is special. American Psychologist, 37, 148–167.
15.
Macdonald, J., Dwyer, D., Ferris, J., and Mcgurk, H. (1978). A simple procedure for accurately manipulating face-voice synchrony when dubbing speech onto videotape. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 845–847.
16.
Marslen-Wilson, W. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226–228.
17.
Marslen-Wilson, W., and Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.
18.
Massaro, D.W. (1987). Speech Perception by Ear and Eye.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Massaro, D.W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 213–234.
20.
Massaro, D.W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the Fuzzy Logical Model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 398–421.
21.
Massaro, D.W., and Cohen, M.M. (1983). Evaluation and integration of visual and auditory information in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 753–771.
22.
Mcclelland, J.L., and Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.
23.
Mcclelland, J.L., and Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
24.
Mcgrath, M., and Summerfield, Q. (1985). Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 678–685.
25.
Mcgurk, H., and Macdonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.
26.
Ohde, R.N., and Stevens, K.N. (1983). Effect of burst amplitude on the perception of stop consonant place of articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 706–714.
27.
Poser, W.J. (1987). L3 Reference Manual (Tech. Rep. No. 87–94). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
28.
Reisberg, D., Mclean, J., and Goldfield, A. (1987). Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd and R. Campbell (eds.), Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-reading (pp. 97–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Repp, B.H. (1984). Closure duration and release burst amplitude cues to stop consonant manner and place of articulation. Language and Speech, 27, 245–254.
30.
Repp, B.H. (1989). Phone restoration. In T. Szende (ed.), Proceedings of Speech Research '89 International Conference (pp. 238–241). Budapest: Linguistic Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1989.
31.
Repp, B.H., and Frost, R. (1988). Detectability of words and nonwords in two kinds of noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1929–1932.
32.
Roberts, M., and Summerfield, Q. (1981). Audiovisual presentation demonstrates that selective adaptation in speech perception is purely auditory. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 309–314.
33.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Domic (ed.), Attention and Performance VI (pp. 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Samuel, A.G. (1981a). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474–494.
35.
Samuel, A.G. (1981b). The role of bottom-up confirmation in the phonemic restoration illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1124–1131.
36.
Samuel, A.G. (1986). The role of the lexicon in speech perception. In E.C. Schwab and H.C. Nusbaum (eds.), Pattern Recognition by Humans and Machines: Speech Perception (pp. 89–111). New York: Academic Press.
37.
Samuel, A.G. (1987). Lexical uniqueness effects on phonemic restoration. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 36–56.
38.
Samuel, A.G., and Ressler, W.H. (1986). Attention within auditory word perception: Insights from the phonemic restoration illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 70–79.
39.
Schroeder, M.R. (1968). Reference signal for signal quality studies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 1735–1736.
40.
Singh, S., and Singh, K.S. (1982). Phonetics: Principles and Practices.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
41.
Stevens, K.N., and Blumstein, S.E. (1978). Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1358–1368.
42.
Summerfield, Q. (1987). Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. In B. Dodd and R. Campbell (eds.), Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-reading (pp. 3–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
