1 / 18

Auditory-acoustic relations and effects on language inventory

Auditory-acoustic relations and effects on language inventory. Carrie Niziolek [carrien] 24.922 5 may 2004. Introduction. Quantal relations both acoustic-articulatory and auditory-acoustic . How does the peripheral auditory system shape responses to acoustics?

ryanadan
Télécharger la présentation

Auditory-acoustic relations and effects on language inventory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Auditory-acoustic relations and effects on language inventory Carrie Niziolek [carrien] 24.922 5 may 2004

  2. Introduction • Quantal relations both acoustic-articulatory and auditory-acoustic. • How does the peripheral auditory system shape responses to acoustics? • How does the central auditory system amplify learned contrasts?

  3. Purpose of report: • to address feature constraints imposed by the auditory system • to address perceptibility as a tool for guiding feature constraints in a language • Does perceptibility (and, by extension, quantalness) affect survival in a language?

  4. Categorical perception • A continuous change in a variable is perceived as instances of discrete categories • Between-cat discrimination is better than within-cat discrimination (enhanced category boundaries) • CP is induced through category learning, or merely acoustic exposure

  5. Speech perception • Motor theory: phonemes are processed by special phonetic mechanisms of hearing (learned internal lang-production model) • Preverbal infants and nonverbal animals share categorical perception boundaries • What decoding processes do our auditory systems have in common?

  6. Feature constraints • Auditory system needs 20 ms to perceive temporal ordering (less than 20 ms = one auditory event?)

  7. Auditory-acoustic relations • Eimas et al. (1971) used a bilabial VOT continuum to show that English infants better discriminate across-boundary stimuli • Eilers et al. (1979) showed that Spanish infants also have greatest sensitivity across the English boundary • Evidence for an auditorily-determined boundary • Do more languages have an English-like boundary than not?

  8. Non-speech aud-acoust relations • Non-linear acoustic to auditory mapping: natural auditory sensitivities Use sawtooth waves to test perception: plucks or bows?

  9. Non-speech aud-acoust relations • Non-linear acoustic to auditory mapping: natural auditory sensitivities • Large-target regions: small variations • Thresholds, regions of instability (~40ms)

  10. Range effects • Input range affects perception: is boundary merely at midpoint of range?

  11. Perceptibility in Turkish • Turkish [h] deletion • Occurs in contexts where lower perceptibility is predicted • Speech taking advantage of perceptual constraints

  12. Optimizing language contrasts • Language evolution will tend to converge on maximally distinct phonemes • Maximize perceptual distance: vowel dispersion • Maximize ease of articulation: find a stable acoustic region that allows for a relatively imprecise gesture

  13. References • Stevens K. On the quantal nature of speech. J. Phonetics (1989) 17, 3-45. • Harnad, S. Psychophysical and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: A critical overview, in Harnad, Stevan, Eds. Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition (1987), chapter 1, pages pp. 1-52. Cambridge University Press. • Howell, P. & Rosen, S. (1984) Natural auditory sensitivities as universal determiners of phonemic contrasts. Linguistics211: 205-235 • Kuhl PK and Miller JD: Speech perception by the chinchilla. Science, 190: 69-72. 1975. • Mielke J. The interplay of speech perception and phonology: experimental evidence from Turkish. Phonetica 2003 Jul-Sep;60(3):208-29. • Gao E, Suga N. Experience-dependent corticofugal adjustment of midbrain frequency map in bat auditory system. Neurobiology 1998 Oct;95(21):12663-12670.

  14. Neural measures of perception • Lateral posterior STG • Acoustic-phonetic processing: activation from words, pseudowords, and reversed speech • Not critical for discrimination of non-speech auditory stimuli (tones, noise) • Disputed: other human vocalizations? (coughing) • Anterior STG • Inferior frontal cortex

  15. Organization of speech circuits • Model of functional circuits that are critical for speech perception • Functional subdivisions in left STG • Anterior STG • Posterior: phonological • Anterior: sentence processing • Posterior STG • Anterior: acoustic-phonetic • Posterior: phonological • Temporoparietal junction: lexical-semantic

  16. Organization of speech circuits • Hierarchical organization • Acoustic-phonetic processing: local posterior network • Increasingly distributed networks as processing becomes more complex • Modular and distributed cortical circuits

  17. Cortical perception • Acoustic-phonetic processes localized to the middle-posterior region of left STG • Increased cortical distribution for higher-level speech perception tasks • Dissociation implies functional subdivisions, hierarchical organization

  18. Corticofugal pathways • i.e., how the cortex affects processing in lower auditory centers • Acoustic cues enhanced or suppressed • Positive feedback to subcortical neurons “matched” in tuning to an acoustic parameter • Lateral inhibition to “unmatched” neurons

More Related