4.2 Article

Talker-familiarity benefit in non-native recognition memory and word identification: The role of listening conditions and proficiency

Journal

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
Volume 81, Issue 5, Pages 1675-1697

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-018-01657-5

Keywords

Familiar talker benefit; Non-native speech comprehension; Noise; Non-native proficiency

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [276-89-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Native listeners benefit from talker familiarity in recognition memory and word identification, especially in adverse listening conditions. The present study addresses the talker familiarity benefit in non-native listening, and the role of listening conditions and listeners' lexical proficiency in the emergence of this benefit. Dutch non-native listeners of English were trained to identify four English talkers over 4 days. Talker familiarity benefit in recognition memory was investigated using a recognition memory task with old and new words produced by familiar and unfamiliar talkers presented either in the clear or in noise. Talker familiarity benefit in word identification was investigated by comparing non-native listeners' performances on the first and the last day in identifying words in different noise levels, produced by either a trained (included in the voice recognition training) or by an untrained talker (not included in the voice recognition training). Non-native listeners demonstrated a talker familiarity benefit in recognition memory, which was modulated by listening conditions and proficiency in the non-native language. No talker familiarity benefit was found in word identification. These results suggest that, similar to native listening, both linguistic and indexical (talker-specific) information influence non-native speech perception. However, this is dependent on the task and type of speech recognition process involved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available