4.5 Article

Integration across frequency bands for consonant identification

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 116, Issue 3, Pages 1749-1762

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.1777858

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC00117] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparison of the predictions of models of integration to data on the reception of consonants filtered into a variety of frequency bands is reported. New data on the consonant identification are presented. Three experiments were conducted testing the following bands: experiment I, 0-2100 Hz and 2100-4500 Hz; experiment II, 0-700 Hz combined with 700-1400, 1400-2100, 2100-2800, and 2800-4500 Hz; experiment III, all combinations of 700-1400, 1400-2100, 2100-2800, and 2800-4500 Hz. The predictions of four models, Fletcher's [Speech and Hearing in Communication (Van Nostrand, New York, 1950)] independent errors model, Massaro's fuzzy logical model of perception [Proc. Int. Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp. 106-113 (1987)], and Braida's pre-labelling and post-labelling models of integration [Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 43, 647-677 (1991)], were compared in terms of their ability to predict combined-band scores. At least two models were capable of predicting performance for each combined-band condition. For experiment I, all models were able to make satisfactory predictions. For experiment II, a variant of the pre-labelling model was able to make satisfactory predictions. For experiment III, no model was able to make satisfactory predictions, but the fuzzy logical model of perception and a variant of the pre-labelling model made relatively good predictions. Thus the ability of the models to predict performance depended more on whether the condition included the lowest frequency band than on the adjacency or frequency separation. (C) 2004 Acoustical Society of America.

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