» Articles » PMID: 15842009

The Distinctness of Speakers' /s/-/S/ Contrast is Related to Their Auditory Discrimination and Use of an Articulatory Saturation Effect

Overview
Date 2005 Apr 22
PMID 15842009
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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 /S/ in normal-, clear-, and fast-speaking conditions. The degree to which the participants used a saturation effect in producing /s/ and /S/ 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 /S/. 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 /S/ 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 /S/ 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.

Citing Articles

Comparing online versus laboratory measures of speech perception in older children and adolescents.

McAllister T, Preston J, Ochs L, Hill J, Hitchcock E PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0297530.

PMID: 38324559 PMC: 10849252. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297530.


Spectral analysis of strident fricatives in cisgender and transfeminine speakersa).

Houle N, Lerario M, Levi S J Acoust Soc Am. 2023; 154(5):3089-3100.

PMID: 37962405 PMC: 10651311. DOI: 10.1121/10.0022387.


Sex Differences in the Speech of Persons With and Without Parkinson's Disease.

Houle N, Feaster T, Mira A, Meeks K, Stepp C Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023; 33(1):96-116.

PMID: 37889201 PMC: 11000784. DOI: 10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00350.


Auditory and Somatosensory Development for Speech in Later Childhood.

Ayala S, Eads A, Kabakoff H, Swartz M, Shiller D, Hill J J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023; 66(4):1252-1273.

PMID: 36930986 PMC: 10187971. DOI: 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00496.


The Relationship Between Pitch Discrimination and Fundamental Frequency Variation: Effects of Singing Status and Vocal Hyperfunction.

Aaron A, Abur D, Volk K, Noordzij J, Tracy L, Stepp C J Voice. 2023; .

PMID: 36754684 PMC: 10405643. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.01.008.