Speakers modulate noise-induced pitch according to intonational context

Ritter, Simon; Roettger, Timo B.

doi:10.21437/speechprosody.2014-167

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the one hand, future research needs to take into account how different speakers or groups of speakers use the parameters (e.g., by looking at the random effects of our models more carefully). On the other hand, it may be interesting to see how the phonetic variables are weighted in certain contexts, for example under adverse communication conditions that can be either language-internal (e.g., short vowels, small portions of voicing, see Niebuhr, 2012 ; Ritter and Roettger, 2014 ) or language-external (e.g., noise, less optimal hearing conditions).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracing the Phonetic Space of Prosodic Focus Marking

Roessig

Winter

Mücke

2022

Front. Artif. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focus is known to be expressed by a wide range of phonetic cues but only a few studies have explicitly compared different phonetic variables within the same experiment. Therefore, we presented results from an analysis of 19 phonetic variables conducted on a data set of the German language that comprises the opposition of unaccented (background) vs. accented (in focus), as well as different focus types with the nuclear accent on the same syllable (broad, narrow, and contrastive focus). The phonetic variables are measures of the acoustic and articulographic signals of a target syllable. Overall, our results provide the highest number of reliable effects and largest effect sizes for accentuation (unaccented vs. accented), while the differentiation of focus types with accented target syllables (broad, narrow, and contrastive focus) are more subtle. The most important phonetic variables across all conditions are measures of the fundamental frequency. The articulatory variables and their corresponding acoustic formants reveal lower tongue positions for both vowels /o, a/, and larger lip openings for the vowel /a/ under increased prosodic prominence with the strongest effects for accentuation. While duration exhibits consistent mid-ranked results for both accentuation and the differentiation of focus types, measures related to intensity are particularly important for accentuation. Furthermore, voice quality and spectral tilt are affected by accentuation but also in the differentiation of focus types. Our results confirm that focus is realized via multiple phonetic cues. Additionally, the present analysis allows a comparison of the relative importance of different measures to better understand the phonetic space of focus marking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracing the Phonetic Space of Prosodic Focus Marking

Roessig

Winter

Mücke

2022

Front. Artif. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cluster #5 is described as "flirtatious" (18%), "happy" (17%), "friendly" (10%): US English listeners name the expression more accurately than Japanese native listeners. Seduction is not a conventionalized expression in Japanese whereas it corresponds to a specific behavior in Western cultures [17].…”

Section: Analysis Of Labelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of Prosodic Social Affects in Japanese by American Learners of Japanese

Guerry¹,

Shochi²,

Rilliard³

et al. 2016

International Symposium on Applied Phonetics (ISAPh 2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates whether people can infer a speaker's social affective expressions in a language that is not their native language, by examining the variable lexical labels used to identify them. A freelabeling paradigm shows evidence of culturalspecificity in the perceptual behavior of listeners. Subjects were 16 US English listeners, asked to name the affective expressions carried by a set of stimuli. The results showed that their perceptual behavior was quite coherent relative to the expressions intended by the speakers. Also, despite the fact that "kyoshuku" is not a conventionalized expression in US culture, listeners' terms to describe it were in accordance with the intended expression. The Japanese prosodic expression of seduction was described as "happy" or "joy" by native listeners whereas "flirtatious" was a term used by US English listeners; a so-called "seductive" expression may be more conventionalized in western cultures than in Japan.

show abstract