JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.40 1406-1424 December 1997.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sussman, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Gekas, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sussman, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Gekas, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Phonetic Category Structure of [I]

Extent, Best Exemplars, and Organization

Joan E. Sussman 1
Brian Gekas 1

1 State University of New York at Buffalo

jsussman{at}acsu.buffalo.edu

The current investigation examined the structure of the phonetic category [I] for 13 listeners. Experiments reported are results from identification, "best exemplar," and discrimination tasks using 105 [I] stimuli. The tokens were synthesized along a mel-spaced vowel continuum that differed in first and second formants. All stimuli ended in a 30 ms [b] sound. Results showed that 10 of 13 listeners demonstrated differing choices of the best exemplars, although most were within 37.5 mels of the central best exemplar chosen in the first experiment. Seven of the participants demonstrated "circular" patterns in identification of the [I] category that appeared to be organized around a central "best exemplar." Six participants showed other identification patterns: "downward, " "upward," and "left-extending," with "best exemplars" on an edge or border of the phonetic categories. Graded category structure from a central "best exemplar" was apparent only in the averaged identification results, and not for individual participants. The size of the [I] category was significantly smaller than that surrounding the [i] best exemplar reported in a prior study by Sussman and Lauckner-Morano (1995). Finally, listeners had equivalent or better discrimination sensitivity with the best exemplar as the fixed standard compared to that for a "poor" exemplar token 45 mels away from the best exemplar. Results showed that phonetic category structure for the lax vowel [I] was different from the similar, but tense vowel [i]. The findings question whether prototype theory is generalizable to vowel categories other than [i].

KEY WORDS: prototype, best exemplar, vowels [i] and [I], speech perception

Submitted on April 29, 1996
Accepted on May 28, 1997


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.