Meaning Does Not Affect Consonant Discrimination Accuracy or Response Time in A Same-Different Segment Comparison Task
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17851/2238-3824.26.2.13-27Keywords:
speech perception, phoneme discrimination, segmentation, psycholinguisticsAbstract
This article reports on three studies designed to test whether knowing the meaning of a word can influence the ability to discriminate sounds in it. In a samedifferent paradigm that required overt segmentation, we investigate the ability to compare consonants in the onset position of a pair of one-syllable pseudowords before (pre-test) and after (post-test) a training phase in which we attributed meanings to half of the pseudowords used. Reduced response time and increased accuracy (percentage of correct answers) in the post-tests revealed a training effect in two experiments. Still, there was no difference between pseudowords to which meanings were attributed or not. Conclusion: Knowing the meaning of a word does not influence the ability to discriminate sounds in it.
Downloads
References
BATES, D.; MÄCHLER, M.; BOLKER, B.; WALKER, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
BURTON, Martha W.; SMALL, Steven L.; BLUMSTEIN, Sheila E. The role of segmentation in phonological processing: an fMRI investigation. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, v. 12, n. 4, p. 679-690, 2000.
EYSENCK, Michael W.; KEANE, Mark T. Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook. Taylor & Francis, 2005.
GANONG, William F. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, v. 6, n. 1, p. 110, 1980.
GERRITS, Ellen; SCHOUTEN, M. E. H. Categorical perception depends on
the discrimination task. Perception & psychophysics, v. 66, n. 3, p. 363-376, 2004.
HOLT, Lori L.; LOTTO, Andrew J. Speech perception as categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, v. 72, n. 5, p. 1218-1227, 2010.
KINGSTON, John. Ears to categories: New arguments for autonomy. In: FROTA, Sonia; VIGÁRIO, Marina; FREITAS, Maria João (Ed.). Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian languages. Walter de Gruyter, 2009. p. 177-222.
MCCLELLAND, James L.; ELMAN, Jeffrey L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive psychology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1-86, 1986.
NORRIS, Dennis; MCQUEEN, James M.; CUTLER, Anne. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 23, p. 299-325, 2000.
PISONI, David B.; LUCE, Paul A. Acoustic-phonetic representations in word recognition. Cognition, v. 25, n. 1-2, p. 21-52, 1987.
R CORE TEAM (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org/.
ROTHE-NEVES R., LAPATE R..C.; PINTO J. S. Tarefa de discriminação de fonemas com pseudopalavras. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem. Faculdade de Letras da UFMG, v. 12, n. 2, 159-179. jul.-dez. 2004.
SANTOS, Lílian Marinho; LEMOS, Stela Maris Aguiar; ROTHE-NEVES, Rui. Perceptual confusions among consonants in Brazilian Portuguese as a function of noise. Audiology-Communication Research, v. 19, n. 2, p. 145-152, 2014.
SCHOUTEN, Bert; GERRITS, Ellen; VAN HESSEN, Arjan. The end of categorical perception as we know it. Speech communication, v. 41, n. 1, p. 71-80, 2003.
SPREEN, Otfried; BORKOWSKI, John G.; BENTON, Arthur L. Auditory word recognition as a function of meaningfulness, abstractness and phonetic structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, v. 6, n. 1, p. 101-104, 1967.
SILVA, F. G. Estudo correlacional entre o desempenho em tarefas lingüísticas e audiológicas de indivíduos afásicos. 2007. 92 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos Lingüísticos) – Faculdade de Letras, Universidade federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2007.
WHITTLESEA, Bruce WA; CANTWELL, Alisa L. Enduring influence of the purpose of experiences: Encoding-retrieval interactions in word and pseudoword perception. Memory & Cognition, v. 15, n. 6, p. 465-472, 1987.