The effects of variation in a speaker's voice and temporal phoneme location were assessed through a series of speeded-classification experiments. Listeners monitored speech syllables for target consonants or vowels. The results showed that speaker variability and phoneme-location variability had detrimental effects on classification latencies for target sounds. In addition, an interaction between variables showed that the speaker-variability effect was obtained only when temporal phoneme location was fixed across trials. A subadditive decrement in latencies produced by the interaction of the two variables was also obtained, suggesting that perceptual loads may not affect perceptual adjustments to a speaker's voice in the same way that memory loads do.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986) Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science.
2.
BaddeleyA. D. (1992) Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
3.
CreelmanC. D. (1957) Case of the unknown talker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 655.
4.
HillenbrandJ.GettyL. A.ClarkM. J.WheelerK. (1997) Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.
5.
KahnemanD. (1973) Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NT: Prentice Hall.
6.
MillerC. M. (1990) ONLINE: A general-purpose program for the generation and control of laboratory experiments and perceptual tests with acoustic stimuli, for use with microcomputers using MS-DOS. [Computer program]Baton Rouge, LA: Laboratory Microsystems.
7.
MillerG. A.NicelyE. E. (1955) An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338–352.
8.
MullennixJ. W.HoweJ. N. (1999) Selective attention in perceptual adjustments to voice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 447–457.
9.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B. (1990) Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 379–390.
10.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B.MartinC. S. (1989) Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365–378.
11.
MullennixJ. W.SawuschJ. R.GarrisonL. (1992) Automaticity and the detection of speech. Memory & Cognition, 20, 40–50.
12.
NavonD.GopherD. (1979) On the economy of the human processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.
13.
NusbaumH. C. (1981) Capacity limitations in phoneme perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State Univer. of New York at Buffalo.
14.
NusbaumH. C.MagnusonJ. (1997) Talker normalization: Phonetic constancy as a cognitive process. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 109–132.
15.
NusbaumH. C.MorinT. (1989) Perceptual normalization of talker differences. Paper presented at the 117th Annual Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Syracuse, NY.
16.
NusbaumH. O.MorinT. (1992) Paying attention to differences among talkers. In TohkuraY.Vatikiotis-BatesonE.SagisakaY. (Eds.), Speech perception, production, and linguistic structure. Tokyo: IOS Press. Pp. 113–134.
17.
NusbaumH. C.SchwabE. C. (1986) The role of attention and active processing in speech perception. In SchwabE. C.NusbaumH. C. (Eds.), Pattern recognition by humans and machines. Vol. 1. Speech perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 113–157.
18.
PetersR. W. (1955) The relative intelligibility of single-voice and multiple-voice messages under various conditions of noise. (Joint Project Report No. 56) Pensacola, FL: U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine. Pp. 1–9.
19.
PisoniD. B. (1997) Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 9–32.
20.
PittM. A.SamuelA. G. (1990) Attentional allocation during speech perception: How fine is the focus?Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 611–632.
