@article {513, title = {Both Contextual and Talker-Bound F0 Information Affect Voiceless Fricative Perception}, year = {2022}, publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen}, address = {Utrecht, The Netherlands}, abstract = {Speech perception is sensitive to context. An example of this is the contrastive effect of fundamental frequency (F0) on the perception of voiceless fricatives{\textquoteright} spectral center of gravity (CoG) (e.g., Niebuhr, 2017). However, whether knowledge about a talker{\textquoteright}s characteristic mean F0 can produce similar effects remains unknown. The present study therefore investigated the effects of contextual (Exp 1) and talker-bound (Exp 2) F0 information on the perception of the voiceless fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/. In Experiment 1, in a 2AFC task, native Dutch listeners (N=10) categorized target words as the Dutch words {\textquotedblleft}sok{\textquotedblright} /sɔk/ or {\textquotedblleft}sjok{\textquotedblright} /ʃɔk/ embedded in a carrier sentence ({\textquotedblleft}Nu komt het woord...{\textquotedblright}) in 3 intermixed F0 conditions. The fricatives were tokens from a synthetic 8-step fricative continuum from /s/ to /ʃ/. The carrier sentence was pitch shifted {\textpm}4 semitones to create High-F0 and Low-F0 context conditions, alongside a Mid-F0 (i.e., non-shifted) control condition. Ambiguous fricatives were perceived as more /s/-like in Low-F0 sentences compared to High-F0 sentences. In Experiment 2, new participants (N=32) first listened to 20 minutes of speech (exposure) from the same talker whose voice had been consistently pitch-shifted up (High-F0 group) or down (Low-F0 group) {\textpm}4 semitones. Afterwards, a 5-step subset of the original 8-step fricative continuum was used in a 2AFC task where participants categorized stimuli without carrier sentences as {\textquotedblleft}sok{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}sjok{\textquotedblright}. The continuum was again perceived as more /s/-like for the Low-F0 group compared to the High-F0 group. Together, the findings suggest that listeners use not only the immediate context but also previously established knowledge about talkers{\textquoteright} typical F0 to interpret incoming speech sounds. References Niebuhr, O. (2017). On the perception of {\textquotedblleft}segmental intonation{\textquotedblright}: F0 context effects on sibilant identification in German. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 2017(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13636-017-0115-3 }, author = {Ulu{\c s}ahin, Orhun and Hans Rutger Bosker and James M. McQueen and Meyer, Antje} } @article {487, title = {Jouw {\textquotedblleft}voornaam{\textquotedblright} is niet mijn {\textquotedblleft}voornaam{\textquotedblright}: An acoustic analysis of individual talker differences in producing lexical stress in Dutch}, year = {2021}, publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen}, address = {online}, abstract = {Different people talk differently, even speakers from the same region. This individual variability results in large acoustic variability in speech, both at the segmental level (productions of vowels and consonants) and the suprasegmental, or prosodic, level (e.g., lexical stress). While individual differences in segment production are well established in the literature, relatively little is known about how individual talkers differ in their prosody. The present study examined individual-talker differences in productions of lexical stress. We recorded 744 tokens of Dutch segmentally overlapping words (e.g., VOORnaam vs. voorNAAM; {\textquoteleft}first name{\textquoteright} vs. {\textquoteleft}respectable{\textquoteright}) in variable sentence contexts from 40 native speakers of Dutch (balanced gender; relatively homogeneous Nijmegen-centered sample), and measured acoustic cues to lexical stress (mean F0, F0 variation, duration, spectral tilt, intensity, and vowel quality). Linear Discriminant Analyses (LDA) on data from each individual participant yielded sets of cue-weights for each participant, informing us on their phonetic cue-weighting strategies. Results showed {\textendash} on top of a general trend to primarily use mean F0, intensity, and duration {\textendash} that each participant also employed a unique combination of cues to signal lexical stress, illustrating large prosodic variability between talkers. Moreover, classes of cue-weighting strategies emerged, with a large group of primarily F0-weighting talkers and another group of primarily intensity-weighting talkers. Furthermore, based on LDA accuracy scores, we confirmed that spectral tilt was a more reliable cue to lexical stress than intensity for /a:/. However, when 9 other vowels were included in the analysis, this advantage disappeared, suggesting that for a larger sample of Dutch vowels both cues are equally important. Together, these outcomes contribute to a more comprehensive acoustic description of lexical stress in Dutch, allowing group-level and individual-talker inferences.}, author = {Severijnen, Giulio G.A. and Hans Rutger Bosker and James M. McQueen} } @article {480, title = {Listeners learn and predict talker-specific prosodic cues in speech perception}, year = {2020}, publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen}, address = {online}, abstract = {One of the challenges in speech perception is that listeners must deal with considerable segmental and suprasegmental variability in the acoustic signal due to differences between talkers. Most previous studies have focused on how listeners deal with segmental variability. In this EEG experiment, we investigated how listeners track talker-specific usage of suprasegmental cues to lexical stress to correctly recognize spoken words. In a 3-day training phase, Dutch participants learned to map non-word minimal stress pairs onto different object referents (e.g., USklot means {\textquotedblleft}lamp{\textquotedblright}; usKLOT means {\textquotedblleft}train{\textquotedblright}). These non-words were produced by two male talkers. Critically, each talker only used one suprasegmental cue to signal lexical stress (e.g., Talker A only used F0, Talker B only amplitude). We expected participants to learn which talker used which cue to signal stress. In the test phase, participants indicated whether spoken sentences including these non-words were correct ({\textquotedblleft}The word for {\textquoteleft}lamp{\textquoteright} is...{\textquotedblright}). We recorded participants{\textquoteright} response times and EEG patterns, targeting an ERP related to phonological prediction: the N200. We found that participants were slower to indicate that a stimulus was correct if the non-word was produced with the unexpected cue (e.g., Talker A using amplitude). That is, if in training Talker A used F0 to signal stress, participants experienced a mismatch between predicted and perceived phonological word-forms if, at test, Talker A unexpectedly used amplitude as cue to stress. This illustrates talker-specific prediction of suprasegmental cues, picked up through perceptual learning in training. In contrast the N200 amplitude, was not modulated by the mismatch. Theoretical implications for these results are discussed.}, author = {Severijnen, Giulio G.A. and Hans Rutger Bosker and Piai, Vitoria and James M. McQueen} } @article {76, title = {Globale and locale sprekeradaptatie: waarneming van het Engelse /S/--/s/ contrast}, year = {2012}, publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen}, address = {Utrecht, The Netherlands}, abstract = {

Door anatomische verschillen, afkomst, en andere factoren bestaat grote variatie tussen sprekers, en luisteraars moeten zich kunnen aanpassen aan de eigenaardigheden van sprekers om elkaar zonder problemen te verstaan. In dit onderzoek is het contrast tussen /S/ en /s/ gebruikt om twee soorten sprekeradaptatie te onderzoeken: lexicongebaseerde aanpassing aan een nieuw accent, en spectrumgebaseerde aanpassing aan spraakkanaalgrootte.
Aanpassing aan een kunstmatig accent is onderzocht door mensen te laten luisteren naar passages met gemanipuleerde sibilanten, en daarvoor en daarna hun sibilantcategorisatie te testen. Het bleek dat luisteraars hun categoriegrenzen aanpassen aan het gehoorde accent, maar slechts in geringe mate en alleen als de categorie{\"e}n anders volledig zouden samenvallen. Om aanpassing aan spraakkanaalgrootte te onderzoeken werd gemeten bij welk spectraal zwaartepunt het omslagpunt tussen /S/ en /s/ lag wanneer de klanken rondom de sibilant eigenschappen hadden van verschillende spraakkanaalgroottes. Informatie over spraakkanaalgrootte verschoof de categoriegrens flink, en be{\"\i}nvloedde ook auditieve disciminatie van luisteraars. In het EEG waren in de eerste stadia van auditieve verwerking (tot 130 ms) geen sporen van aanpassing te zien terwijl de mismatchnegativiteit wel contextafhankelijk bleek, wat suggereert dat sprekernormering al na 200 ms heeft plaatsgevonden.
Dit onderzoek laat dus zien dat sprekeraanpassing op globaal niveau in relatief vroege stadia van auditieve verwerking plaatsvindt, terwijl subtiele lokale aanpassingen pas worden gedaan wanneer globale verwachtingen tot fouten leiden.\ 

}, author = {Mirjam de Jonge and Paul Iverson and Anita Wagner and James M. McQueen} } @article {169, title = {Lexical-stress information rapidly modulates spoken-word recognition}, year = {2007}, publisher = {Nederlandse Vereniging voor Fonetische Wetenschappen}, address = {Utrecht, The Netherlands}, abstract = {

The time-course of the effect of suprasegmental stress information on word recognition was investigated by tracking Dutch listeners{\textquoteright} looks to arrays of four printed words on a computer screen as they listened to spoken sentences. Target trials included word pairs that did not differ segmentally in their first two syllables but differed in their stress placement (e.g., {\textquoteright}BArometer{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteright}baroNES{\textquoteright}; capitals marking stressed syllables). The listeners{\textquoteright} eye-movements showed that they used stress information to disambiguate rapidly between word candidates. For example, when hearing {\textquoteright}baroNES{\textquoteright}, participants looked more at {\textquoteright}baroNES{\textquoteright} than at its competitor {\textquoteright}BArometer{\textquoteright} even before segmental information could disambiguate the words. Furthermore, there was an asymmetry in the amount of competition. Words with stress on the first syllable provided stronger competition than words with non-initial stress. Lexical stress information thus affects the degree to which words compete, and it is used immediately to modulate the recognition process.

}, author = {Eva Reinisch and Alexandra Jesse and James M. McQueen} }