Joseph S. Perkell

The role of auditory feedback in speech production was investigated by examining speakers’ phonemic contrasts produced under increases in the noise to signal ratio (N/S). Seven cochlear implant users and seven normal-hearing controls pronounced utterances containing the vowels /i/, /u/, /ε/ and /æ/ and the sibilants /s/ and /ʃ/ while hearing their speech mixed with noise at seven equally spaced levels between their thresholds of detection and discomfort. Speakers’ average vowel duration and SPL generally rose with increasing N/S. Average vowel contrast was initially flat or rising; at higher N/S levels, it fell. A contrast increase is interpreted as reflecting speakers’ attempts to maintain clarity under degraded acoustic transmission conditions. As N/S increased, speakers could detect the extent of their phonemic contrasts less effectively, and the competing influence of economy of effort led to contrast decrements. The sibilant contrast was more vulnerable to noise; it decreased over the entire range of increasing N/S for controls and was variable for implant users. The results are interpreted as reflecting the combined influences of a clarity constraint, economy of effort and the effect of masking on achieving auditory phonemic goals—with implant users less able to increase contrasts in noise than controls.

This study examines individual differences in producing the sibilant contrast in American English and the relation of those differences to 2 speaker characteristics: (a) use of a quantal biomechanical effect (called a "saturation effect") in producing the sibilants and (b) performance on a test of sibilant discrimination. Twenty participants produced the sibilants /s/ and /∫/ in normal-, clear-, and fast-speaking conditions. The degree to which the participants used a saturation effect in producing /s/ and /∫/ was assessed with a custom-made sensor that measured contact of the underside of the tongue tip with the lower alveolar ridge; such contact normally occurs during the production of /s/ but not /∫/. The acuteness of the participants' discrimination of the sibilant contrast was measured using the ABX paradigm and synthesized sibilants. Differences among speakers in the degree of acoustic contrast between /s/ and /∫/ that they produced proved related to differences among them in their use of contact contrastively and in their discriminative performance. The most distinct sibilant productions were obtained from participants who used contact in producing /s/ but not /∫/ and who had high discrimination scores. The participants who did not use contact differentially when producing the 2 sibilants and who also discriminated the synthetic sibilants less well produced the least distinct sibilant contrasts. Intermediate degrees of sibilant contrast were found with participants who used contact differentially or discriminated well. These findings are compatible with a model of speech motor planning in which goals for phonemic speech movements are in somatosensory and auditory spaces.

This study addresses the hypothesis that the more accurately a speaker discriminates a vowel contrast, the more distinctly the speaker produces that contrast. Measures of speech production and perception were collected from 19 young adult speakers of American English. In the production experiment, speakers repeated the words cod, cud, who’d, and hood in a carrier phrase at normal, clear, and fast rates. Articulatory movements and the associated acoustic signal were recorded, yielding measures of contrast distance between /ɑ/ and /ʌ/ and between /u/ and /ʊ/. In the discrimination experiment, sets of seven natural-sounding stimuli ranging from cod to cud and who’d to hood were synthesized, based on productions by one male and one female speaker. The continua were then presented to each of the 19 speakers in labeling and discrimination tasks. Consistent with the hypothesis, speakers with discrimination scores above the median produced greater acoustic contrasts than speakers with discrimination scores at or below the median. Such a relation between speech production and perception is compatible with a model of speech production in which articulatory movements for vowels are planned primarily in auditory space.