Vowel formant discrimination II: Effects of stimulus uncertainty, consonantal context, and training

Abstract

This study is one in a series that has examined factors contributing to vowel perception in everyday listening. Four experimental variables have been manipulated to examine systematical differences between optimal laboratory testing conditions and those characterizing everyday listening. These include length of phonetic context, level of stimulus uncertainty, linguistic meaning, and amount of subject training. The present study investigated the effects of stimulus uncertainty from minimal to high uncertainty in two phonetic contexts, /V/ or /bVd/, when listeners had either little or extensive training. Thresholds for discriminating a small change in a formant for synthetic female vowels /I,E,ae,a,inverted v,o/ were obtained using adaptive tracking procedures. Experiment I optimized extensive training for five listeners by beginning under minimal uncertainty (only one formant tested per block) and then increasing uncertainty from 8-to-16-to-22 formants per block. Effects of higher uncertainty were less than expected; performance only decreased by about 30%. Thresholds for CVCs were 25% poorer than for isolated vowels. A previous study using similar stimuli [Kewley-Port and Zheng. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2945-2958 (1999)] determined that the ability to discriminate formants was degraded by longer phonetic context. A comparison of those results with the present ones indicates that longer phonetic context degrades formant frequency discrimination more than higher levels of stimulus uncertainty. In experiment 2, performance in the 22-formant condition was tracked over 1 h for 37 typical listeners without formal laboratory training. Performance for typical listeners was initially about 230% worse than for trained listeners. Individual listeners' performance ranged widely with some listeners occasionally achieving performance similar to that of the trained listeners in just one hour.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 122 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.