4.5 Article

Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: Contextual influences

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 125, Issue 6, Pages 3974-3982

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3106131

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [R01DC000130, F31DC009114] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01DC000130, R01 DC000130, F31 DC009114] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous research indicates that talkers differ in phonetically relevant properties of speech, including voice-onset-time (VOT) in word-initial stop consonants; some talkers have characteristically shorter VOTs than others. Previous research also indicates that VOT is robustly affected by contextual influences, including speaking rate and place of articulation. This paper examines whether these contextual influences on VOT are themselves talker-specific. Many tokens of alveolar /ti/ (experiment 1) or labial /pi/ and velar /ki/ (experiment 2) were elicited from talkers across a range of rates. VOT and vowel duration (a metric of rate) were measured for each token. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that (1) VOT increased as rate decreased for all talkers, but the magnitude of the increase varied significantly across talkers; thus the effect of rate on VOT was talker-specific; (2) the talker-specific effect of rate was stable across a change in place of articulation; and (3) for all talkers VOTs were shorter for labial than velar stops, and there was no significant variability in the magnitude of this displacement across talkers; thus the effect of place on VOT was not talker-specific. The implications of these findings for how listeners might accommodate talker differences in VOT during speech perception are discussed. (C) 2009 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.3106131]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available