1 / 10

Speech Perception in Infants

Speech Perception in Infants. Peter D. Eimas, Einar R. Siqueland, Peter Jusczyk, and James Vigorito 1971. Purpose of the Study. To compare discriminability of two synthetic speech sounds separated by a fixed difference in VOT in infants under two conditions:

mary
Download Presentation

Speech Perception in Infants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Speech Perception in Infants Peter D. Eimas, Einar R. Siqueland, Peter Jusczyk, and James Vigorito 1971

  2. Purpose of the Study • To compare discriminability of two synthetic speech sounds separated by a fixed difference in VOT in infants under two conditions: • condition 1: the two stimuli lay on opposite sides of the adult phonemic boundary • condition 2: the two stimuli are from the same phonemic category

  3. Rationale • Perception cue for voicing in English stop consonants in initial position is the onset of the first formant relative to the second and third formants in adults. • Perception of the cue is categorical—speech is special. • “Given the strong evidence for universal—and presumably biologically determined—modes of production for the voicing distinction, we should suppose that there might exist a complementary process of perception.” (pg. 304)

  4. Participants • 1 and 4 month old infants • 8 from each age level randomly assigned to the two conditions • 10 from each age level assigned to control condition

  5. High Amplitude Sucking Paradigm Typically, the experiment takes place in a sound-attenuated chamber. The infant is installed in a reclining seat, and a flexible arm holds a pacifier in his/her mouth. A pressure transducer measures the air pressure inside the pacifier, and sends the signal into a computer.

  6. HASP continued… • The experimentation program detects sucks, computes their amplitude and plays a stimulus back whenever a suck is considered as having a high amplitude. • Thus, the reinforcing auditory stimulus is presented contingent on the infants’ sucking responses. • The more the baby sucks, the more he/she can listen to the sounds

  7. HASP continued… • Baseline measure of sucking is gathered • Followed by operant conditioning and habituation phases • When a criterion is met (that the number of sucks per minute significantly decreases by at least 20% for 2 consecutive minutes), the experimental groups switch to the test phase, when they listen to the new stimuli (this is the “shift”). 

  8. Results • When the babies perceived a difference between the two classes of stimuli, they usually responded to the novelty by increasing their sucking in the minutes following the change of stimuli.  • They noticed more of a difference when the stimuli were from different adult phonemic categories • Figure 2

  9. Results continued… • The shift data for younger infants differed slightly from the older infants when the stimuli were from the same phonemic category • Figure 3

  10. Implications The authors suggest: • Infants discriminate voiced and voiceless stop consonants in a manner approximating categorical perception • Because of infants’ limited exposure to speech and lack of production experience, this categorical perception in a linguistic mode may be innate

More Related