» Articles » PMID: 36544064

Recognizing Non-native Spoken Words in Background Noise Increases Interference from the Native Language

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2022 Dec 21
PMID 36544064
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Listeners frequently recognize spoken words in the presence of background noise. Previous research has shown that noise reduces phoneme intelligibility and hampers spoken-word recognition - especially for non-native listeners. In the present study, we investigated how noise influences lexical competition in both the non-native and the native language, reflecting the degree to which both languages are co-activated. We recorded the eye movements of native Dutch participants as they listened to English sentences containing a target word while looking at displays containing four objects. On target-present trials, the visual referent depicting the target word was present, along with three unrelated distractors. On target-absent trials, the target object (e.g., wizard) was absent. Instead, the display contained an English competitor, overlapping with the English target in phonological onset (e.g., window), a Dutch competitor, overlapping with the English target in phonological onset (e.g., wimpel, pennant), and two unrelated distractors. Half of the sentences was masked by speech-shaped noise; the other half was presented in quiet. Compared to speech in quiet, noise delayed fixations to the target objects on target-present trials. For target-absent trials, we observed that the likelihood for fixation biases towards the English and Dutch onset competitors (over the unrelated distractors) was larger in noise than in quiet. Our data thus show that the presence of background noise increases lexical competition in the task-relevant non-native (English) and in the task-irrelevant native (Dutch) language. The latter reflects stronger interference of one's native language during non-native spoken-word recognition under adverse conditions.

Citing Articles

The role of general cognitive skills in integrating visual and linguistic information during sentence comprehension: individual differences across the lifespan.

Hintz F, Voeten C, Dobo D, Lukics K, Lukacs A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):17797.

PMID: 39090337 PMC: 11294566. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-68674-3.


English Speakers' Perception of Non-native Vowel Contrasts in Adverse Listening Conditions: A Discrimination Study on the German Front Rounded Vowels /y/ and /ø/.

Kaucke S, Schlechtweg M Lang Speech. 2024; 68(1):162-180.

PMID: 38853599 PMC: 11831862. DOI: 10.1177/00238309241254350.


Neural Representations of Non-native Speech Reflect Proficiency and Interference from Native Language Knowledge.

Brodbeck C, Kandylaki K, Scharenborg O J Neurosci. 2023; 44(1).

PMID: 37963763 PMC: 10851685. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0666-23.2023.

References
1.
Ben-David B, Chambers C, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller M, Reingold E, Schneider B . Effects of aging and noise on real-time spoken word recognition: evidence from eye movements. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010; 54(1):243-62. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0233). View

2.
Brodeur M, Dionne-Dostie E, Montreuil T, Lepage M . The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS One. 2010; 5(5):e10773. PMC: 2879426. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010773. View

3.
Cumming G . The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2013; 25(1):7-29. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504966. View

4.
Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N . Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 116(6):3668-78. DOI: 10.1121/1.1810292. View

5.
Declerck M, Meade G, Midgley K, Holcomb P, Roelofs A, Emmorey K . Language control in bimodal bilinguals: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia. 2021; 161:108019. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108019. View