Phonetic Convergence Enhances Speech Intelligibility

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2025 Mar 12

PMID 40069480

Authors

Josh Dorsi

James W Dias

Serena Zadoorian

Lawrence D Rosenblum

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Phonetic convergence describes when a listener's speech becomes subtly more like the speech of a talker they hear. There are many possible reasons why phonetic convergence occurs. Here, we test whether phonetic convergence can facilitate speech perception. A group of adult native-English speaking participants (n = 9) were asked to identify words-in-noise generated from a group of talkers who either: (a) shadowed the speech of the participant (said out loud words they heard - Associated Shadowers) or (b) shadowed the speech of a different participant (Unassociated Shadowers). A separate group of raters (n = 45) performed an AXB similarity-matching task to confirm that Associated Shadowers sounded more like the participant they had shadowed than Unassociated Shadowers. We found that participants more accurately identified the speech of their Associated Shadowers and their accuracy for identifying the speech of their Associated Shadowers was positively related to the rated similarity of their speech. The results support theoretical accounts suggesting that phonetic convergence may facilitate speech understanding between individuals.

References

Adank P, Hagoort P, Bekkering H . Imitation improves language comprehension. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21(12):1903-9. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610389192. View

Adank P, Rueschemeyer S, Bekkering H . The role of accent imitation in sensorimotor integration during processing of intelligible speech. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7:634. PMC: 3789941. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00634. View

Borrie S, Schafer M . The Role of Somatosensory Information in Speech Perception: Imitation Improves Recognition of Disordered Speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015; 58(6):1708-16. DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-15-0163. View

Borrie S, Schafer M . Effects of Lexical and Somatosensory Feedback on Long-Term Improvements in Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60(8):2151-2158. DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0411. View

Bradlow A, Bent T . The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112(1):272-84. DOI: 10.1121/1.1487837. View

Broadbent D . Word-frequency effect and response bias. Psychol Rev. 1967; 74(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1037/h0024206. View

Dufour S, Nguyen N . How much imitation is there in a shadowing task?. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:346. PMC: 3689145. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00346. View

Eger N, Reinisch E . The impact of one's own voice and production skills on word recognition in a second language. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018; 45(3):552-571. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000599. View

Felps D, Bortfeld H, Gutierrez-Osuna R . Foreign accent conversion in computer assisted pronunciation training. Speech Commun. 2010; 51(10):920-932. PMC: 2993100. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2008.11.004. View

10.

Ferreira V . A Mechanistic Framework for Explaining Audience Design in Language Production. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018; 70:29-51. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653. View

11.

Fusaroli R, Bahrami B, Olsen K, Roepstorff A, Rees G, Frith C . Coming to terms: quantifying the benefits of linguistic coordination. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23(8):931-9. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612436816. View

12.

Garrod S, Pickering M . Why is conversation so easy?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 8(1):8-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016. View

13.

Hadley L, Fisher N, Pickering M . Listeners are better at predicting speakers similar to themselves. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2020; 208:103094. PMC: 7408002. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103094. View

14.

Lewandowski E, Nygaard L . Vocal alignment to native and non-native speakers of English. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018; 144(2):620. PMC: 6082668. DOI: 10.1121/1.5038567. View

15.

Nguyen N, Dufour S, Brunelliere A . Does imitation facilitate word recognition in a non-native regional accent?. Front Psychol. 2012; 3:480. PMC: 3495332. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00480. View

16.

Nygaard L, Sommers M, Pisoni D . SPEECH PERCEPTION AS A TALKER-CONTINGENT PROCESS. Psychol Sci. 2011; 5(1):42-46. PMC: 3081685. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00612.x. View

17.

OLDFIELD R . Things, words and the brain. Q J Exp Psychol. 1966; 18(4):340-53. DOI: 10.1080/14640746608400052. View

18.

Pardo J . On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119(4):2382-93. DOI: 10.1121/1.2178720. View

19.

Pitcher D, Garrido L, Walsh V, Duchaine B . Transcranial magnetic stimulation disrupts the perception and embodiment of facial expressions. J Neurosci. 2008; 28(36):8929-33. PMC: 6670866. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1450-08.2008. View

20.

Pickering M, Garrod S . An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behav Brain Sci. 2013; 36(4):329-47. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12001495. View