The effects of variability on context effects and psychometric function slopes in speaking rate normalizationa).

Acoustic context influences speech perception, but contextual variability restricts this influence. Assgari and Stilp [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 3023-3032 (2015)] demonstrated that when categorizing vowels, variability in who spoke the preceding context sentence on each trial but not the sentence contents diminished the resulting spectral contrast effects (perceptual shifts in categorization stemming from spectral differences between sounds). Yet, how such contextual variability affects temporal contrast effects (TCEs) (also known as speaking rate normalization; categorization shifts stemming from temporal differences) is unknown. Here, stimuli were the same context sentences and conditions (one talker saying one sentence, one talker saying 200 sentences, 200 talkers saying 200 sentences) used in Assgari and Stilp [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 3023-3032 (2015)], but set to fast or slow speaking rates to encourage perception of target words as "tier" or "deer," respectively. In Experiment 1, sentence variability and talker variability each diminished TCE magnitudes; talker variability also produced shallower psychometric function slopes. In Experiment 2, when speaking rates were matched across the 200-sentences conditions, neither TCE magnitudes nor slopes differed across conditions. In Experiment 3, matching slow and fast rates across all conditions failed to produce equal TCEs and slopes everywhere. Results suggest a complex interplay between acoustic, talker, and sentence variability in shaping TCEs in speech perception.

Short-term, not long-term, average spectra of preceding sentences bias consonant categorization.

Speech sound perception is influenced by the spectral properties of surrounding sounds. For example, listeners perceive /g/ (lower F3 onset) more often after sounds with prominent high-F3 frequencies and perceive /d/ (higher F3 onset) more often after sounds with prominent low-F3 frequencies. These biases are known as spectral contrast effects (SCEs). Much of this work examined differences between long-term average spectra (LTAS) of preceding sounds and target speech sounds. Post hoc analyses by Stilp and Assgari [(2021) Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83(6) 2694-2708] revealed that spectra of the last 475 ms of precursor sentences, not the entire LTAS, best predicted biases in consonant categorization. Here, the influences of proximal (last 500 ms) versus distal (before the last 500 ms) portions of precursor sentences on subsequent consonant categorization were compared. Sentences emphasized different frequency regions in each temporal window (e.g., distal low-F3 emphasis, proximal high-F3 emphasis, and vice versa) naturally or via filtering. In both cases, shifts in consonant categorization were produced in accordance with spectral properties of the proximal window. This was replicated when the distal window did not emphasize either frequency region, but the proximal window did. Results endorse closer consideration of patterns of spectral energy over time in preceding sounds, not just their LTAS.

Nonspeech sounds are not all equally good at being nonspeech.

Perception of speech sounds has a long history of being compared to perception of nonspeech sounds, with rich and enduring debates regarding how closely they share similar underlying processes. In many instances, perception of nonspeech sounds is directly compared to that of speech sounds without a clear explanation of how related these sounds are to the speech they are selected to mirror (or not mirror). While the extreme acoustic variability of speech sounds is well documented, this variability is bounded by the common source of a human vocal tract. Nonspeech sounds do not share a common source, and as such, exhibit even greater acoustic variability than that observed for speech. This increased variability raises important questions about how well perception of a given nonspeech sound might resemble or model perception of speech sounds. Here, we offer a brief review of extremely diverse nonspeech stimuli that have been used in the efforts to better understand perception of speech sounds. The review is organized according to increasing spectrotemporal complexity: random noise, pure tones, multitone complexes, environmental sounds, music, speech excerpts that are not recognized as speech, and sinewave speech. Considerations are offered for stimulus selection in nonspeech perception experiments moving forward.

Context effects in perception of vowels differentiated by F1 are not influenced by variability in talkers' mean F1 or F3.

Spectral properties of earlier sounds (context) influence recognition of later sounds (target). Acoustic variability in context stimuli can disrupt this process. When mean fundamental frequencies (f0's) of preceding context sentences were highly variable across trials, shifts in target vowel categorization [due to spectral contrast effects (SCEs)] were smaller than when sentence mean f0's were less variable; when sentences were rearranged to exhibit high or low variability in mean first formant frequencies (F1) in a given block, SCE magnitudes were equivalent [Assgari, Theodore, and Stilp (2019) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 145(3), 1443-1454]. However, since sentences were originally chosen based on variability in mean f0, stimuli underrepresented the extent to which mean F1 could vary. Here, target vowels (/ɪ/-/ɛ/) were categorized following context sentences that varied substantially in mean F1 (experiment 1) or mean F3 (experiment 2) with variability in mean f0 held constant. In experiment 1, SCE magnitudes were equivalent whether context sentences had high or low variability in mean F1; the same pattern was observed in experiment 2 for new sentences with high or low variability in mean F3. Variability in some acoustic properties (mean f0) can be more perceptually consequential than others (mean F1, mean F3), but these results may be task-dependent.

Musical training is not associated with spectral context effects in instrument sound categorization.

Musicians display a variety of auditory perceptual benefits relative to people with little or no musical training; these benefits are collectively referred to as the "musician advantage." Importantly, musicians consistently outperform nonmusicians for tasks relating to pitch, but there are mixed reports as to musicians outperforming nonmusicians for timbre-related tasks. Due to their experience manipulating the timbre of their instrument or voice in performance, we hypothesized that musicians would be more sensitive to acoustic context effects stemming from the spectral changes in timbre across a musical context passage (played by a string quintet then filtered) and a target instrument sound (French horn or tenor saxophone; Experiment 1). Additionally, we investigated the role of a musician's primary instrument of instruction by recruiting French horn and tenor saxophone players to also complete this task (Experiment 2). Consistent with the musician advantage literature, musicians exhibited superior pitch discrimination to nonmusicians. Contrary to our main hypothesis, there was no difference between musicians and nonmusicians in how spectral context effects shaped instrument sound categorization. Thus, musicians may only outperform nonmusicians for some auditory skills relevant to music (e.g., pitch perception) but not others (e.g., timbre perception via spectral differences).

Clear speech promotes speaking rate normalization.

When speaking in noisy conditions or to a hearing-impaired listener, talkers often use clear speech, which is typically slower than conversational speech. In other research, changes in speaking rate affect speech perception through speaking rate normalization: Slower context sounds encourage perception of subsequent sounds as faster, and vice versa. Here, on each trial, listeners heard a context sentence before the target word (which varied from "deer" to "tier"). Clear and slowed conversational context sentences elicited more "deer" responses than conversational sentences, consistent with rate normalization. Changing speaking styles aids speech intelligibility but might also produce other outcomes that alter sound/word recognition.

Talker adaptation or "talker" adaptation? Musical instrument variability impedes pitch perception.

Listeners show perceptual benefits (faster and/or more accurate responses) when perceiving speech spoken by a single talker versus multiple talkers, known as talker adaptation. While near-exclusively studied in speech and with talkers, some aspects of talker adaptation might reflect domain-general processes. Music, like speech, is a sound class replete with acoustic variation, such as a multitude of pitch and instrument possibilities. Thus, it was hypothesized that perceptual benefits from structure in the acoustic signal (i.e., hearing the same sound source on every trial) are not specific to speech but rather a general auditory response. Forty nonmusician participants completed a simple musical task that mirrored talker adaptation paradigms. Low- or high-pitched notes were presented in single- and mixed-instrument blocks. Reflecting both music research on pitch and timbre interdependence and mirroring traditional "talker" adaptation paradigms, listeners were faster to make their pitch judgments when presented with a single instrument timbre relative to when the timbre was selected from one of four instruments from trial to trial. A second experiment ruled out the possibility that participants were responding faster to the specific instrument chosen as the single-instrument timbre. Consistent with general theoretical approaches to perception, perceptual benefits from signal structure are not limited to speech.

Clearly, fame isn't everything: Talker familiarity does not augment talker adaptation.

Familiarity with a talker's voice provides numerous benefits to speech perception, including faster responses and improved intelligibility in quiet and in noise. Yet, it is unclear whether familiarity facilitates talker adaptation, or the processing benefit stemming from hearing speech from one talker compared to multiple different talkers. Here, listeners completed a speeded recognition task for words presented in either single-talker or multiple-talker blocks. Talkers were either famous (the last five Presidents of the United States of America) or non-famous (other male politicians of similar ages). Participants either received no information about the talkers before the word recognition task (Experiments 1 and 3) or heard the talkers and saw their names first (Experiment 2). As expected, responses were faster in the single-talker blocks than in the multiple-talker blocks. Famous voices elicited faster responses in Experiment 1, but familiarity effects were extinguished in Experiment 2, possibly by hearing all voices recently before the experiment. When talkers were counterbalanced across single-talker and mixed-talker blocks in Experiment 3, no familiarity effects were observed. Predictions of familiarity facilitating talker adaptation (smaller increase in response times across single- and multiple-talker blocks for famous voices) were not confirmed. Thus, talker familiarity might not augment adaptation to a consistent talker.