@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}
}
