Eye movements reflect acoustic cue informativity and statistical noise

Authors

  • Jessie S. Nixon Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University, Netherlands , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Netherlands , MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Australia Author
  • Jacolien van Rij Department of Linguistics, University of Tübingen, Germany Author
  • Peggy Mok Department of Linguistics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Author
  • Harald Baayen Department of Linguistics, University of Tübingen, Germany Author
  • Yiya Chen Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University, Netherlands , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Netherlands Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2015/06/0013/000250

Keywords:

speech perception, acoustic variation, word discrimination, Cantonese

Abstract

Listeners rely on highly variable, non-discrete acoustic information to understand spoken messages. The present ‘visual world’ eye-tracking study investigated whether the amount of acoustic cue variation affected Cantonese listeners’ perception of speech contrasts. Participants saw pictures of word pairs which were identical except for initial consonants (unaspirated versus aspirated). Auditory stimuli were continua of increasing VOT presented in bimodal distributions. The amount of acoustic variation varied between conditions: high-variance versus low-variance. Generalised Additive Modelling analyses showed that, in the low-variance condition, eye movements reflected cue values: there was differential fixation behaviour for category means, boundaries, and peripheries. In contrast, in the high-variance condition, the acoustic cue had little effect: fixation behaviour was similar across the different acoustic cue values. This demonstrates listeners’ high sensitivity to the discriminative value of acoustic cues. How much cue dimensions are utilised depends on their variance.

References

Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M., Aslin, R. and Jacobs, R. A. 2008. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. *Cognition*, 108, 804–809.

Maye, J., Werker, J. F. and Gerken, L. 2002. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. *Cognition*, 82(3), B101–B111.

Wood, S. 2006. *Generalized additive models: An introduction with R*. CRC Press.

Downloads

Published

01-01-2015

How to Cite

Eye movements reflect acoustic cue informativity and statistical noise. (2015). Linguistic Proceedings Series, 6(1), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2015/06/0013/000250

Similar Articles

61-70 of 372

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.