Speech Perception

Studdert‐Kennedy, Michael

doi:10.1177/002383098002300106

Cited by 58 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perception requires no arbitrary association of signal with phone-tic category, and no correspondingly arbitrary progression from an auditory stage (e.g., different sounding glissandi) to a superseding phonetic label. As Studdert-Kennedy (1976) has put it, the phonetic category 'names itself'.…”

Section: The Account Provided By the Motor Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The motor theory of speech perception revised

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A motor theory of speech perception, initially proposed to account for results of early experiments with synthetic speech, is now extensively revised to accommodate recent findings, and to relate the assumptions of the theory to those that might be made about other perceptual modes. According to the revised theory, phonetic information is perceived in a biologically distinct system, a 'module' specialized to detect the intended gestures of the speaker that are the basis for phonetic categories. Built into the structure of this module is the unique but lawful relationship between the gestures and the acoustic patterns in which they are variously overlapped. In consequence, the module causes perception of phonetic structure without translation from preliminary auditory impressions. Thus, it is comparable to such other modules as the one that enables an animal to localize sound. Peculiar to the phonetic module are the relation between perception and production it incorporates and the fact that it must compete with other modules for the same stimulus variations.

show abstract

Section: The Account Provided By the Motor Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The motor theory of speech perception revised

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, more meticulous spectral analysis reveals that each short segment of speech carries information on one phoneme together with its bordering phonemes (A. M. Liberman, 1970aLiberman, , 1970bA. M. Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967;Massaro, 1975;Studdert-Kennedy, 1975). For example, what one could isolate as the spectral representation of the phoneme /s/ appears to differ in the syllables /su/ and lsi!…”

Section: The Natural Confounding Of Time and Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Remington (1977) demonstrated that in a CVC syllable, although the initial consonant precedes the vowel, recognition of the vowel can occur before recognition ofthe initial consonant. Even though this reversal is not due so much to the functioning ofauditory memory as to the way speech sounds are coarticulated (see Studdert-Kennedy, 1975, for a review), it suggests that the phenomenological experience of the temporal deployment of speech and the actual reality can sometimes show important discrepancies.…”

Section: Wrong Start: the Need For Backtracking And For A Processing mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of time during lexical processing and segmentation: A review

Mattys

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech, by its very nature, is a time-based phenomenon. Speech sounds are temporally distributed, with the presentation of one sound roughly conditioned by the fading of the previous one. In this review, three classes of models are discussed with respect to the sequential nature of speech. It is argued that the three resulting conceptions of time are linked to the type of segmentation process proposed by these models to deal with speech continuity. In the first one, lexical activation is viewed as perfectly synchronized with the temporal deployment of speech. This type of model corresponds to the traditionalleft-to-right (proactive) account of lexical processing. Because serious segmentation problems exist for such an approach (e.g., car and card are embedded in cardinal), the second type of model treats word recognition as the result of a mechanism that sometimes delays commitment on word identity beyond word offset. Lexical activation, instead of shadowing the unfolding of time, lags behind it until an unambiguous decision can be made. The temporarily unprocessed information is stored in a memory buffer. In the third approach, a prosodic cue (lexical stress) contributes actively to speech segmentation and lexical processing. Every stressed syllable encountered in the signal is postulated as a word onset and thus constitutes the starting point of lexical activation. However, with non-initial-stressed words, retroactive procedures going "back in time" must be used. Finally,the use oftime (including proactive, delayed, and retroactive procedures) is discussed in light of cross-linguistic phonological differences.How spoken words are recognized is a major concern in psycho linguistics. Models posited to explain this complex cognitive skill have traditionally ascribed a central position to the notion of lexical processing, which corresponds to the multiple steps that lead to the recognition of a word (Frauenfelder & Tyler, 1987). Lexical processing includes three stages: (l) the initial contact between the input signal and the mental lexicon, (2) the activation ofcandidates in the lexicon and their progressive selection, and (3) the recognition of the actual word. The term lexical access is usually reserved to describe the moment at which lexical information becomes available to the speech processor.Approaching lexical processing and segmentation from a time perspective is unconventional in the field of word recognition. Traditionally, research has mainly focused on the informational side ofspeech processing (amount of information, number of phonemes, type of perceptual units, quality of the input, etc.). However, it is possible to examine and classify the models built on this type of evidence along a time-based typology. In this review, I have This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant ROI MH516630 I. I am very grateful to Arty Samuel for his supervision of this work and to the following members of the speech laboratory: Donna Kat and Lee Wurm. Thanks are also due Susan Brennan, Richard G...

show abstract

“…In this section we review thes two aspects of whet has been learned about the problem. (StUddert-Kennedy, 1976), among others as basic unite In perceon. RegardIess of which of these propol one favors, It nonetheless seems clear that at various levels of processing there exist sown kind~s) of wit which have been extracted from the speech signal (lis conclusion appears necessary If one assume a generative capacity I speech percept) it is theirefor umuaily assumed that an Important and appropriate task for speech analysis Is somieliow to segment the speech input-to draw Hnes separating the The problem Is that whatever the units of perception are, thabk boundaries we rarely evident In the signal (Zue & Schwartz, 1980).…”

Section: Interactive Activation In Speech Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%