Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:47:44.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of voice recognition in monolingual and bilingual listeners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2019

Rachel M. Theodore Open the ORCID record for Rachel M. Theodore [Opens in a new window]  and
Erin G. Flanagan
Rachel M. Theodore*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; University of Connecticut Connecticut Institute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences; University of Connecticut
Erin G. Flanagan
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; University of Connecticut
*
Author for correspondence: Rachel M. Theodore, E-mail: rachel.theodore@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent findings demonstrate a bilingual advantage for voice processing in children, but the mechanism supporting this advantage is unknown. Here we examined whether a bilingual advantage for voice processing is observed in adults and, if so, if it reflects enhanced pitch perception or inhibitory control. Voice processing was assessed for monolingual and bilingual adults using an associative learning identification task and a discrimination task in English (a familiar language) and French (an unfamiliar language). Participants also completed pitch perception, flanker, and auditory Stroop tasks. Voice processing was improved for the familiar compared to the unfamiliar language and reflected individual differences in pitch perception (both tasks) and inhibitory control (identification task). However, no bilingual advantage was observed for either voice task, suggesting that the bilingual advantage for voice processing becomes attenuated during maturation, with performance in adulthood reflecting knowledge of linguistic structure in addition to general auditory and inhibitory control abilities.

Keywords

speech perceptionvoice processingindividual differencesbilinguals
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 158 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S, Christensen, RHB, Singmann, H and Grothendieck, G (2014) Package ‘lme4.’ R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 12.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E (2017) The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin 143(3), 233–262.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E and Grundy, JG (2018) Science does not disengage. Cognition 170, 330–333.Google Scholar
Bradlow, AR and Pisoni, DB (1999) Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(4), 2074–2085.Google Scholar
Bregman, MR and Creel, SC (2014) Gradient language dominance affects talker learning. Cognition 130(1), 85–95.Google Scholar
Chodroff, E and Wilson, C (2017) Structure in talker-specific phonetic realization: Covariation of stop consonant VOT in American English. Journal of Phonetics 61, 30–47.Google Scholar
Clarke, CM and Garrett, MF (2004) Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(6), 3647–3658.Google Scholar
Clayards, M, Tanenhaus, MK, Aslin, RN and Jacobs, RA (2008) Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108(3), 804–809.Google Scholar
Drouin, JR, Theodore, RM and Myers, EB (2016) Lexically guided perceptual tuning of internal phonetic category structure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140(4), EL307–EL313. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4964468Google Scholar
Eriksen, BA and Eriksen, CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics 16(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267Google Scholar
Fecher, N and Johnson, EK (2018a) Effects of language experience and task demands on talker recognition by children and adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143(4), 2409–2418.Google Scholar
Fecher, N and Johnson, EK (2018b) The native-language benefit for talker identification is robust in 7.5-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar
Fleming, D, Giordano, BL, Caldara, R and Belin, P (2014) A language-familiarity effect for speaker discrimination without comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(38), 13795–13798.Google Scholar
Goggin, JP, Thompson, CP, Strube, G and Simental, LR (1991) The role of language familiarity in voice identification. Memory & Cognition 19(5), 448–458.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J, Getty, LA, Clark, MJ and Wheeler, K (1995) Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(5), 3099–3111.Google Scholar
Johns, A (2016) Sensory and cognitive influences on lexical competition in spoken word recognition in younger and older listeners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Johnson, EK, Bruggeman, L and Cutler, A (2018) Abstraction and the (misnamed) language familiarity effect. Cognitive Science 42(2), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12520Google Scholar
Johnson, EK, Westrek, E, Nazzi, T and Cutler, A (2011) Infant ability to tell voices apart rests on language experience. Developmental Science 14(5), 1002–1011.Google Scholar
Kadam, MA, Orena, AJ, Theodore, RM and Polka, L (2016) Reading ability influences native and non-native voice recognition, even for unimpaired readers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(1), EL6–EL12.Google Scholar
Köster, O and Schiller, NO (1997) Different influences of the native language of a listener on speaker recognition. Forensic Linguistics 4, 18–28.Google Scholar
Levi, SV (2018) Another bilingual advantage? Perception of talker-voice information. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(3), 523–536.Google Scholar
Levi, SV and Schwartz, RG (2013) The development of language-specific and language-independent talker processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56(3), 913–925.Google Scholar
Newman, RS, Clouse, SA and Burnham, JL (2001) The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(3), 1181–1196.Google Scholar
Nygaard, LC and Pisoni, DB (1998) Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 60(3), 355–376.Google Scholar
Orena, AJ, Theodore, RM and Polka, L (2015) Language exposure facilitates talker learning prior to language comprehension, even in adults. Cognition 143, 36–40.Google Scholar
Owren, MJ (2008) GSU Praat Tools: Scripts for modifying and analyzing sounds using Praat acoustics software. Behavior Research Methods 40(3), 822–829. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.822Google Scholar
Paap, KR and Greenberg, ZI (2013) There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology 66(2), 232–258.Google Scholar
Paap, KR, Myuz, HA, Anders, RT, Bockelman, MF, Mikulinsky, R and Sawi, OM (2017) No compelling evidence for a bilingual advantage in switching or that frequent language switching reduces switch cost. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 29(2), 89–112.Google Scholar
Perrachione, TK, Del Tufo, SN and Gabrieli, JD (2011) Human voice recognition depends on language ability. Science 333(6042), 595–595.Google Scholar
Perrachione, TK and Wong, PC (2007) Learning to recognize speakers of a non-native language: Implications for the functional organization of human auditory cortex. Neuropsychologia 45(8), 1899–1910.Google Scholar
Skoe, E, Burakiewicz, E, Figueiredo, M and Hardin, M (2017) Basic neural processing of sound in adults is influenced by bilingual experience. Neuroscience 349, 278–290.Google Scholar
Sommers, MS and Danielson, SM (1999) Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: The interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychology and Aging 14(3), 458.Google Scholar
Sommers, MS and Huff, LM (2003) The effects of age and dementia of the Alzheimer's type on phonological false memories. Psychology and Aging 18(4), 791.Google Scholar
Sullivan, KP and Schlichting, F (2000) Speaker discrimination in a foreign language: First language environment, second language learners. Forensic Linguistics 7(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
Theodore, RM, Miller, JL and DeSteno, D (2009) Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: Contextual influences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(6), 3974–3982. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3106131Google Scholar
Theodore, RM, Myers, EB and Lomibao, JA (2015) Talker-specific influences on phonetic category structure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138(2), 1068–1078.Google Scholar
Valji, A (2004) Language preference in monolingual and bilingual infants (Unpublished Master's thesis). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
Wester, M (2012) Talker discrimination across languages. Speech Communication 54(6), 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2012.01.006Google Scholar
Winters, SJ, Levi, SV and Pisoni, DB (2008) Identification and discrimination of bilingual talkers across languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(6), 4524–4538.Google Scholar
Xie, X and Myers, E (2015) The impact of musical training and tone language experience on talker identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(1), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4904699Google Scholar
Ye, Y, Mo, L and Wu, Q (2017) Mixed cultural context brings out bilingual advantage on executive function. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4), 844–852. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000481Google Scholar