Upload
karyn-sullivan
View
25
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Experiments concerning boundary tone perception in German. 3 rd Workshop of the SPP-1234 Potsdam, 7 th January 2009 Presentation of the Stuttgart Project (Möbius & Dogil) Katrin Schneider. Outline. Categorical Perception (CP) Perceptual Magnet Effect (PME) Experimental designs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Experiments concerningboundary tone perception in German3rd Workshop of the SPP-1234
Potsdam, 7th January 2009
Presentation of the Stuttgart Project (Möbius & Dogil)
Katrin Schneider
Outline
Categorical Perception (CP) Perceptual Magnet Effect (PME) Experimental designs Stimulus preparation Experiments:
Boundary tone perception in German without context information
Boundary tone perception in German including context information (Identification only)
Outlook
Categorical Perception (CP)
Test design developed according to the perception of plosives (Repp, 1984) Perception is categorical if the peak in discrimination
corresponds to the category crossover found in identification.
Experiments in the prosodic research area: House (1996) Kohler (1987, 1990) Ladd & Morton (1997) Remijsen & van Heuven (1999); van Heuven & Kirsner
(2004) Schneider & Lintfert (2003) Falé & Hub Faria (2006)
Perceptual Magnet Effect (PME) Kuhl (1991):
Phonetic perception is influenced by language experience
PME: discrimination ability differs inside a category prototype (P) attracts its immediate neighbors – low
discrimination performance around a non–prototype (NP) – better discrimination
performance
Experimental designs
Testing for CP and PME simultaneously Identification: assign stimulus to one of the given
categories Goodness rating (only for PME):
separately for each category found in identification How well does the presented stimulus fits into the assigned
category? scale given Discrimination:
Does the presented stimulus pair consists of identical or of different stimuli?
differences in the construction of stimulus pairs between CP and PME test design
Stimulus preparation
Test for German boundary tones (BT) Test stimulus:
ambiguous between statement/question interpretation no syntactic bias: PP
noun consisting of mostly sonorants; no /ə/ pitch accent not on the last syllable polysyllabic noun; no compound noun
“ins kalte Panama” (in the cold Panama), embedded in carrier sentences
male native German speaker
Stimulus preparation
Manipulation of fundamental frequency (F0) of the last 2 syllables of the target PP: Calculation F0 range: mean rise to H%: 90 Hz; mean
fall to L% : 50 Hz ERB (Equivalent Rectangular Bandwidth) scale used PSOLA resynthesis
Headphones used during each test
H*L
Additional stimuli for PME test
Additional stimuli for PME testH%
L%
0,338ERB
Perception of German boundary tones (without context) Results (25 subjects (10 females)):
s-shaped curves in identification; 2 categories CP and PME for the statement category:
clear prototype & non-prototype (goodness rating) disc. peak & warping of perceptual space around P
unclear results for the question category: better within-category discrimination performance than in
statement category → no clear CP, but also no gradual perception
individual prototypes differ → no PME problematic: combination of CP and PME test design
in discrimination
Perceptual reference space
Perception of German boundary tones (including context information) Why?
context might have an influence on the location of the category boundary
there is always context in normal conversation – no “out-of-the-blue” sentences
How? 2 different context types we tested for:
BT height of the preceding sentence (influence of F0)) syntactic structure of the preceding sentence (influence of
syntax) same speaker as in previous experiment
Contexts: fundamental frequency (F0)
Does the F0 of the preceding sentence influences perception? preceding sentences: statement vs. question; only
difference in BT heighta)
“Er will verreisen. Nach Panama./?”
b)
“Er will verreisen? Nach Panama./?”
L%
Time (s)
0 3.04219
0
250
Time (s)
0 3.04219
0
250
L%
H%
Time (s)
0 3.04219
0
250
L%
H%
Time (s)
0.00980033 1.67695
0
250
H%
L% condition
H% condition
Contexts: syntax
Does the syntactic structure of the preceding sentence influences perception? preceding sentences: synt. statement vs. synt. question;
differ in their syntactical constructions
a)
“Er will verreisen. Nach Panama./?”
c)
“Was liegt da? Ein Ticket nach Panama./?”
L%
Time (s)
0 3.04219
0
250
Time (s)
0 3.04219
0
250
L%
H%
Time (s)
0 3.18356
0
250
L%Time (s)
0 3.18356
0
250
L%
H%
L% condition
Wh_L% condition
Identification
20 stimuli in each condition; 10 repetitions = 600 stimuli; randomized order
3 subtests: each incl. 6 training stimuli & 200 test stimuli 36 participants (23 females, 13 males) Exclusion of high reaction times (RT):
outliers > 2*sdev+mean RT outliers > 2,374614 2,5% of the data
excluded
Identification: general results Results:
clear s-shaped curves for all contexts
L%H%Wh_L%
Identification: general results Results:
clear s-shaped curves for all contexts
significant differences inside the BT-height
condition as well as inside the
syntax condition there seems to be an
influence on the location of the category boundary in each context condition in the intended direction
Identification: gender differences Gender differences:
in each single context condition as well as pooled over all data, females: show an earlier
crossover than males
pooled over all contextscondition L%condition H%condition Wh_L%
Identification: gender differences Gender differences:
in each single context condition as well as pooled over all data, females: show an earlier
crossover than males are significantly faster
than males
pooled over all contextscondition L%condition H%condition Wh_L%
Identification: gender differences Gender differences:
in each single context condition as well as pooled over all data, females: show an earlier
crossover than males are significantly faster
than males no sign. differences
inside each category (‘statement’ vs. ‘question’)
Identification: gender differences Differences in context conditions:
males: only BT height influences location of category boundary
L%H%
L%Wh_L%
Identification: gender differences Differences in context conditions:
females: only syntax influences location of category boundary
L%H%
L%Wh_L%
Identification: RT
RT as indicator for category boundary? males: nearly perfect match in all contexts
L% conditionH% conditionWh_L% condition
Identification
RT as indicator for category boundary? females: nearly perfect match (except H% condition)
L% conditionH% conditionWh_L% condition
Summary Identification
significant gender differences with respect to the category boundary location reaction times
significant differences between presented context conditions, however gender of the participant has to be taken into account
Outlook
finish the analyses of this experiment: Goodness rating & CP discrimination: on the poster PME discrimination analysis: currently running Perceptual reference maps & comparison to without-
context results further experiments:
Finish experiment with female voice & compare possible gender-specific behavior to male-voice experiments
Experiments concerning pitch accents (preparation finished) & analyze the results
Thank you!
Questions?
Comments?
Suggestions?
…