Skip to main content

News about Scitation

In December 2016 Scitation will launch with a new design, enhanced navigation and a much improved user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, from today, we are temporarily stopping new account registration and single article purchases. If you already have an account you can continue to use the site as normal.

For help or more information please visit our FAQs.

banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669
1.
1. Bates, M. , Maechler, D. , and Bolker, B. (2011). “ lme4: Effects models using s4 classes,” r package version 0.999375-39, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (Last viewed May 22, 2014).
2.
2. Boersma, P. , and Weenink, D. (2014). “ Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.77),” http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (Last viewed May 22, 2014).
3.
3. Flagg, E. J. , Oram Cardy, J. E. , and Roberts, T. P. (2006). “ MEG detects neural consequences of anomalous nasalization in vowel-consonant pairs,” Neurosci. Lett. 397, 263268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.12.034
4.
4. Gerrits, E. , and Schouten, M. E. H. (2004). “ Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task,” Percept. Psychophys. 66, 363376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194885
5.
5. Hwang, S. -O. , Mohanan, P. J. , and Idsardi, W. J. (2010). “ Underspecification and asymmetries in voicing perception,” Phonology 27, 205224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675710000102
6.
6. Jaeger, J. J. (1980). “ Testing the psychological reality of phonemes,” Lang. Speech 23, 223253.
7.
7. Klatt, D. H. (1980). “ Software for a cascade/parallel synthesizer,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 971995.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.383940
8.
8. Lipski, S. (2006). “ Neural correlates of fricative contrasts across language boundaries”, Ph.D. thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
9.
9. Mitterer, H. (2006). “ On the causes of compensation for coarticulation: Evidence for phonological mediation,” Percept. Psychophys. 68, 12271240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193723
10.
10. Mitterer, H. , Csépe, V. , Honbolygo, R. , and Blomert, L. (2006). “ The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience,” Cognit. Sci. 30, 451479.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_57
11.
11. Mohanan, P. J. , Hwang, S.-O. , and Idsardi, W. J. (2008). “ Neural correlates of voicing mismatch in obstruent clusters using MEG,” Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC, November 2008.
12.
12. Moreton, E. (2002). “ Phonological grammar in speech perception,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts–Amherst, Amherst, MA.
13.
13. Peperkamp, S. , Pettinato, M. , and Dupoux, E. (2003). “ Allophonic variation and the acquisition of phoneme categories,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, edited by B. Beachley, A. Brown, and F. Conlin (Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA), Vol. 2, pp. 650661.
14.
18.R Core Team (2014). “ R: A language and environment for statistical computing,” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ (Last viewed May 22, 2014).
15.
14. Stevens, K. , and Bickley, C. (1991). “ Constraints among parameters simplify control of Klatt formant synthesizer,” J. Phonet. 19, 161174.
16.
15. Wade, T. , and Holt, L. (2005). “ Effects of later-occurring nonlinguistic sounds on speech categorization,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 17011710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1984839
17.
16. Weber, A. (2001). “ Help or hindrance: How violation of different assimilation rules affects spoken-language processingLang. Speech 44, 95118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440010401
18.
17. Weber, A. (2002). “ Assimilation violation and spoken-language processing: A supplementary report,” Lang. Speech 45, 3746.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450010201
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669
2014-05-29
2016-12-05

Abstract

Does native knowledge introduce a perceptual bias against allophones that mismatch their context? In German, [x] only occurs after back vowels, while [ç] occurs elsewhere. German and English listeners heard “allophonic” ([ç-x]) and “non-allophonic” ([ç-f], [x-f]) continua after front and back vowels. Vowel affected German responses to [ç-x] and [ç-f], but not [x-f]. Vowel affected English responses to all continua. The asymmetric effect on German responses is explained as a perceptual expectation of [ç] after [y]. The effect on English responses is explained by acoustic misparsing, which causes some of the vowel's spectrum to cue a spectrally similar fricative.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/1.4879669.html;jsessionid=EQGTdv_sxIKnuxl9CcLzzP6F.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=asadl.org/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879669'
Right1,Right2,Right3,