Home Categorical Perception as a Function of Stimulus Quality
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Categorical Perception as a Function of Stimulus Quality

  • A.J. van Hessen and M.E.H. Schouten
Published/Copyright: July 21, 1999

Abstract

A number of experiments were carried out in order to test the hypothesis that categorical perception of speech stimuli is a function of synthetis quality – specifically, that the greater complexity of more natural speech stimuli makes it difficult for listeners to focus on particular stimulis parameters as psychoacoustic cues. The results show that there is an increase in categorical perception as synthesis quality improves from a simple synthesis by rule, via LPC synthesis, to a much more complex type called sinewave generation.


verified


References

1 Cutting, J.E.: Plucks and bows are categorically perceived, sometimes. Percept. Psychophys. 31: 462–476 (1982).10.3758/BF03204856Search in Google Scholar

2 Hessen, A.J. van: Discrimination of familiar and unfamiliar speech sounds; doct. diss. Utrecht University (1992).Search in Google Scholar

3 Hessen, A.J. van; Schouten, M.E.H.: Modeling phoneme perception. II. A model of stop consonant discrimination. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 92: 1856–1868 (1992).10.1121/1.403842Search in Google Scholar

4 Lane, H.: The motor theory of speech perception, a critical review. Psychol. Rev. 72: 275–309 (1965).10.1037/h0021986Search in Google Scholar

5 Liberman, A.M.; Harris, K.S.; Hoffman, H.S.; Griffith, B.C.: The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. J. exp. Psychol. 54: 358–368 (1957).10.1037/h0044417Search in Google Scholar

6 Macmillan, N.A.; Braida, L.D.; Goldberg, R.F.: Central and peripheral processes in the perception of speech and nonspeech sounds; in Schouten, The psychophysics of speech perception, pp. 28–45 (Nijhoff, The Hague 1987).10.1007/978-94-009-3629-4_2Search in Google Scholar

7 Macmillan, N.A.; Creelman, C.D.: Detection theory: a user’s guide (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991).Search in Google Scholar

8 Macmillan, N.A.; Goldberg, R.F.; Braida, L.D.: Resolution for speech sounds: basic sensitivity and context memory on vowel and consonant continua. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 84: 1262–1280 (1988).10.1121/1.396626Search in Google Scholar

9 Macmillan, N.A.; Kaplan, A.L.; Creelman, C.D.: The psychophysics of categorical perception. Psychol. Rev. 84: 452–471 (1977).10.1037/0033-295X.84.5.452Search in Google Scholar

10 Massaro, D.W.: Categorical partition: a fuzzy-logical model of categorization behavior; in Harnad, Categorical perception, pp. 254–283 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1987).Search in Google Scholar

11 Schouten, M.E.H.: The case against a speech mode of perception. Acta psychol. 44: 71–98 (1980).10.1016/0001-6918(80)90077-3Search in Google Scholar

12 Schouten, M.E.H.; Hessen, A.J. van: Modeling phoneme perception. I. Categorical perception. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 92: 1841–1855 (1992a).10.1121/1.403841Search in Google Scholar

13 Schouten, M.E.H.; Hessen, A.J. van: Different discrimination strategies for vowels and consonants; in Schouten, The auditory processing of speech: from sounds to words. pp. 309–314 (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 1992b).Search in Google Scholar

14 Studdert-Kennedy, M.; Liberman, A.M.; Harris, K.S.; Cooper, F.S.: The motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane’s critical review. Psychol. Rev. 77: 234–249 (1970).10.1037/h0029078Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 1999-07-21
Published in Print: 1999-06-01

© 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel

Downloaded on 31.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1159/000028441/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button