If one listens to a meaningless syllable that is repeated over and over, he will hear it undergo a variety of changes that can be described systematically in terms of reorganizations of the phones constituting the syllable and changes in a restricted set of phonetic distinctive features. When the repeated syllable is followed by a different syllable but in the same voice, the new (test) syllable will be misperceived in a manner related to the perceptual misrepresentation of the repeated syllable. In the present experiment subjects (N = 24) listened to 72 different experimental sequences of repeated syllables in a male voice followed by test syllables in a female voice. Identification of penultimate and test syllables was independent and in no instance were the phones constituting the syllables reorganized. These results are interpreted as evidence against both auditory and phonetic feature detector theories of speech perception.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyP. J. Perceptual adaptation for acoustical features in speech. In Speech Perception: Report on research in progress in the Department of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1973, 2(2), 29–34.
2.
BaileyP. J. Procedural variables in speech perception. In Speech perception: Report on research in progress in the Department of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1974, 2(3), 35–39.
3.
BregmanA. S.CampbellJ.Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 89, 244–249.
4.
CooperW. E.Adaptation of phonetic feature analyzers for place of articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1974, 56, 617–628. (a).
5.
CooperW. E.Contingent feature analysis in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 201–204. (b).
6.
CooperW. E.Selective adaptation for acoustic cues of voicing in initial stops. Journal of Phonetics, 1974, 2, 303–313. (c).
CooperF. S.DelattreP. C.LibermanA. M.BorstJ. M.GuttmanL. J.Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1952, 24, 597–606.
9.
2Recently, on hearing the results of our experiment, Dr. A. Ades performed a related experiment using “male” and “female” artificial speech stimuli. His findings confirm our observations and indicate that the results of our present as well as our earlier experiment (Lackner & Goldstein, 1975) apply with equal force to artificial speech stimuli.
10.
DiehlR.The effect of selective adaptation on the identification of speech sounds. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 48–52.
11.
EimasP.CooperW. E.CorbitJ. D.Some properties of linguistic feature detectors. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 13, 247–252.
12.
EimasP.CorbitJ. D.Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, 99–109.
13.
EimasP.SiquelandE. R.JusczykP.VigoritoJ.Speech perception in infants. Science, 1971, 171, 303–306.
14.
FodorJ. A.BeverT. G.GarrettM. F.The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
15.
GoldsteinL.LacknerJ.Alterations of the phonetic coding of speech sounds during repetition. Cognition, 1973, 2, 279–297.
16.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N.Receptive fields of optic nerve fibers in the spider monkey. Journal of Physiology, 1960, 154, 572–580.
17.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N.Integrative action in the cat's lateral geniculate body. Journal of Physiology, 1961, 155, 385–398.
18.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N.Receptive fields of cells in striate cortex of very young, visually inexperienced kittens. Journal of Neurophysiology, 1963, 26, 994–1002.
19.
KuhlP. K.MillerJ. D.Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 1975, 190, 69–72.
20.
LacknerJ. R.GoldsteinL. M.Primary auditory stream segregation of repeated consonant-vowel sequences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1974, 56, 1651–1652.
21.
LacknerJ. R.GoldsteinL. M.The psychological representation of speech sounds. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975, 27, 128–140.
22.
LashleyK. S.The problem of serial order in behavior. In JeffressL. A. (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior.New York: Wiley, 1951. Pp. 112–136.
23.
LibermanA. M.CooperF. S.ShankweilerD. P.Studdert-KennedyM.Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 431–461.
24.
LibermanA.HarrisK.EimasP.LiskerL.BastianJ.An effect of learning on speech perception: The discrimination of durations of silence with and without phonemic significance. Language and Speech, 1961, 4, 175–195.
25.
MillerG.NicelyP.An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 338–352.
26.
MountcastleV. B.Some functional properties of the somatic afferent system. In RosenblithW. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication.Cambridge: MIT Press, 1961. Pp. 403–406.
27.
PisoniD.TashJ.Auditory property detectors and processing place features in stop consonants. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 18, 401–408.
28.
PittsW.McCullochW. S.How we know universals: The perception of auditory and visual forms. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics (Univer. of Chicago), 1947, 9, 127–147.
29.
TartterV.EimasP.The role of auditory feature detectors in the perception of speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 18, 293–298.
30.
TullerB.LacknerJ.Primary auditory stream segregation of repeated word sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 42, 1071–1074.
