Hubbry Logo
Auditory phoneticsAuditory phoneticsMain
Open search
Auditory phonetics
Community hub
Auditory phonetics
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Auditory phonetics
Auditory phonetics
Auditory phonetics
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Phonetics
Subdisciplines
Articulation
Places of articulation
Manners of articulation
Airstream mechanisms
Acoustics
Phonation (Voicing)
Phonation types
Perception
Theories of speech perception
Linguistics

Auditory phonetics is the branch of phonetics concerned with the hearing of speech sounds and with speech perception. It thus entails the study of the relationships between speech stimuli and a listener's responses to such stimuli as mediated by mechanisms of the peripheral and central auditory systems, including certain areas of the brain. It is said to compose one of the three main branches of phonetics along with acoustic and articulatory phonetics,[1][2] though with overlapping methods and questions.[3]

Physical scales and auditory sensations

[edit]

There is no direct connection between auditory sensations and the physical properties of sound that give rise to them. While the physical (acoustic) properties are objectively measurable, auditory sensations are subjective and can only be studied by asking listeners to report on their perceptions.[4] The table below shows some correspondences between physical properties and auditory sensations.

Physical property Auditory perception
amplitude or intensity loudness
fundamental frequency pitch
spectral structure sound quality
duration length

Segmental and suprasegmental

[edit]

Auditory phonetics is concerned with both segmental (chiefly vowels and consonants) and prosodic (such as stress, tone, rhythm and intonation) aspects of speech. While it is possible to study the auditory perception of these phenomena without context, in continuous speech all these variables are processed in parallel with significant variability and complex interactions between them.[5][6] For example, it has been observed that vowels, which are usually described as different from each other in the frequencies of their formants, also have intrinsic values of fundamental frequency (and presumably therefore of pitch) that are different according to the height of the vowel. Thus open vowels typically have lower fundamental frequency than close vowels in a given context,[7] and vowel recognition is likely to interact with the perception of prosody.

In speech research

[edit]

If there is a distinction to be made between auditory phonetics and speech perception, it is that the former is more closely associated with traditional non-instrumental approaches to phonology and other aspects of linguistics, while the latter is closer to experimental, laboratory-based study. Consequently, the term auditory phonetics is often used to refer to the study of speech without the use of instrumental analysis: the researcher may make use of technology such as recording equipment, or even a simple pen and paper (as used by William Labov in his study of the pronunciation of English in New York department stores),[8] but will not use laboratory techniques such as spectrography or speech synthesis, or methods such as EEG and fMRI that allow phoneticians to directly study the brain's response to sound. Most research in sociolinguistics and dialectology has been based on auditory analysis of data and almost all pronunciation dictionaries are based on impressionistic, auditory analysis of how words are pronounced. It is possible to claim an advantage for auditory analysis over instrumental: Kenneth L. Pike stated "Auditory analysis is essential to phonetic study since the ear can register all those features of sound waves, and only those features, which are above the threshold of audibility ... whereas analysis by instruments must always be checked against auditory reaction".[9] Herbert Pilch attempted to define auditory phonetics in such a way as to avoid any reference to acoustic parameters.[10] In the auditory analysis of phonetic data such as recordings of speech, it is clearly an advantage to have been trained in analytical listening. Practical phonetic training has since the 19th century been seen an essential foundation for phonetic analysis and for the teaching of pronunciation; it is still a significant part of modern phonetics. The best-known type of auditory training has been in the system of cardinal vowels; there is disagreement about the relative importance of auditory and articulatory factors underlying the system, but the importance of auditory training for those who are to use it is indisputable.[11]

Training in the auditory analysis of prosodic factors such as pitch and rhythm is also important. Not all research on prosody has been based on auditory techniques: some pioneering work on prosodic features using laboratory instruments was carried out in the 20th century (e.g. Elizabeth Uldall's work using synthesized intonation contours,[12] Dennis Fry's work on stress perception[13] or Daniel Jones's early work on analyzing pitch contours by means of manually operating the pickup arm of a gramophone to listen repeatedly to individual syllables, checking where necessary against a tuning fork).[14] However, the great majority of work on prosody has been based on auditory analysis until the recent arrival of approaches explicitly based on computer analysis of the acoustic signal, such as ToBI, INTSINT or the IPO system.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Auditory phonetics

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Auditory phonetics is the branch of that investigates the of by the human , focusing on how acoustic signals are received, processed, and interpreted through the , auditory nerve, and . This field emphasizes the physiological processes of speech reception, distinguishing it from , which studies sound production in the vocal tract, and , which analyzes the physical properties of sound waves during transmission. It explores how the differentiates phonetic features, such as vowels and consonants, to ensure intelligibility in diverse listening conditions. Key theoretical frameworks in auditory phonetics include the quantal theory, which posits that evolve toward perceptually stable categories like the high-front /i/ (present in 92% of 317 surveyed languages) and low-central /a/ (88%), and the dispersion theory, which prioritizes maximal perceptual separation among sounds to enhance robustness and distinctiveness. These concepts highlight the adaptive design of phonological systems, where auditory processing favors sounds that are both stable and discriminable despite variations in production or environmental noise. Auditory phonetics plays a crucial role in understanding language cognition and has practical applications in speech pathology, where it aids in diagnosing perceptual disorders, and in , such as developing voice recognition systems that mimic sound interpretation. By bridging acoustics and perception, it contributes to broader insights into how achieve efficient communication across languages and contexts.

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Auditory phonetics is the branch of dedicated to the study of how are perceived and processed by the human , with a primary emphasis on the listener's interpretation of acoustic signals rather than the speaker's articulation. This subfield explores the physiological and psychological mechanisms through which the and convert physical sound waves into recognizable phonetic elements, enabling the decoding of linguistic information from continuous auditory input. Unlike production-oriented approaches, it prioritizes the perceptual robustness of speech, ensuring intelligibility across diverse acoustic environments. The scope of auditory phonetics distinctly separates it from , which examines the physiological movements of vocal organs in sound production, and , which measures the physical attributes of sound waves such as and . Instead, it delves into the perceptual transformations that occur post-acoustic transmission, including how listeners categorize subtle variations in speech signals. A core integration lies with , where auditory processes underpin —the phenomenon in which listeners treat gradual acoustic changes as sharp boundaries between discrete phonological categories, thereby shaping the sound inventories of languages. This perceptual categorization facilitates the efficient mapping of acoustic continua to phonemic distinctions, as evidenced in classic experiments on voice onset time boundaries. Auditory phonetics maintains strong interdisciplinary connections to , which delineates thresholds for sound detection and discrimination; to , illuminating roles of the in phonetic encoding and neural to speech cues; and to , particularly in elucidating speech perception's contributions to and formation. Key concepts include auditory stream segregation, the perceptual process by which the groups coherent sound elements into separate "streams" to isolate speech from competing , enhancing focus on relevant linguistic signals. Furthermore, it addresses the identification of vowels and consonants through the analysis of spectral patterns and temporal features, where auditory enhancements amplify critical distinctions for accurate phonetic recognition.

Historical Development

The foundations of auditory phonetics trace back to the , when laid early groundwork through his psychoacoustic investigations into auditory sensations. In his seminal 1863 work, On the Sensations of Tone, Helmholtz analyzed how complex tones are perceived by the ear, proposing resonance theories for the inner ear's basilar that linked physical sound vibrations to perceptual qualities like pitch and . This approach emphasized the physiological basis of hearing, influencing subsequent studies on how auditory mechanisms process sound spectra relevant to speech. Complementing Helmholtz's contributions, pioneered in the mid-19th century, developing quantitative methods to measure the relationship between physical stimuli and sensory perceptions, including auditory thresholds and just noticeable differences in tone intensity. Fechner's Elements of Psychophysics (1860) provided empirical tools that enabled precise experimentation on auditory , setting a methodological standard for later phonetic research. In the , auditory advanced significantly during the and , building on critiques of Alvin Liberman's , which posited that listeners recognize speech by simulating articulatory gestures rather than purely acoustic cues. This theory, developed at Haskins Laboratories, faced challenges from acoustic variability in speech signals, prompting alternatives like auditory enhancement theory, which argued that coarticulation enhances salient acoustic contrasts for better perceptual distinctiveness without invoking motor simulation. Carol Fowler played a pivotal role in addressing perceptual invariance—the challenge of recognizing stable phonetic units amid variable acoustics—through her direct realist framework, proposing that listeners perceive invariant speech gestures directly from structured auditory events, as demonstrated in experiments on syllable organization and cross-modal cues. Key milestones emerged in the 1970s with the establishment of experiments, where Michael Studdert-Kennedy and colleagues showed that are discriminated more sharply across phonetic boundaries than within them, highlighting nonlinear auditory processing unique to linguistic stimuli. By the 1990s, integration with advanced the field, as (fMRI) studies revealed brain regions like the activating differentially for , providing neural correlates for auditory phonetic categorization. The , post-2000, has seen auditory incorporate computational modeling to simulate perceptual processes, such as neural networks approximating categorical boundaries in cross-linguistic phonetic inventories, revealing universal and language-specific auditory adaptations. Cross-linguistic studies have further illuminated how early exposure shapes auditory tuning, while recent developments up to 2025 emphasize AI-driven simulations, like unified embedding spaces that model acoustic-to-linguistic transitions for improved systems. Influential researchers have deepened these insights: Denis Burnham's work on demonstrated how sensitivity at 6 months predicts later vocabulary growth, underscoring experiential influences on auditory development. Similarly, Patricia Kuhl's native language magnet effect, expanded in her NLM-e model, showed that by 12 months, infants' phonetic categories "magnetize" native sounds, facilitating perception while repelling non-native ones, with implications for bilingual acquisition.

Acoustic-Auditory Interface

Physical Sound Scales

Physical sound scales in auditory phonetics quantify the objective properties of speech signals as they propagate through the air and interface with the . These scales focus on measurable attributes such as , , duration, and composition, providing a foundation for analyzing how acoustic energy is structured in . The core physical dimensions of include , measured in hertz (Hz), which determines pitch through the (F0), the lowest component repeating in a periodic . , representing intensity, is typically expressed in decibels (dB), where sound pressure level (SPL) calibrates relative to a reference pressure; the formula for SPL is given by Lp=20log⁡10(pp0)L_p = 20 \log_{10} \left( \frac{p}{p_0} \right) with pp as the root-mean-square sound pressure and p0=20 μPap_0 = 20 \, \mu \mathrm{Pa} as the standard reference for hearing thresholds in air. Duration, crucial for timing distinctions like consonant-vowel boundaries, is measured in milliseconds (ms). Spectral content encompasses the distribution of energy across frequencies, often characterized by formant frequencies in Hz, which are resonant peaks in the vocal tract transfer function. Logarithmic scales adapt linear physical measures to approximate auditory processing. The decibel scale for SPL inherently logarithmic, compressing the wide dynamic range of sound pressures (from 0 to over 140 dB SPL in speech contexts). For frequency, the mel scale warps linear Hz into a perceptually relevant scale, defined approximately as m=2595log⁡10(1+f/700)m = 2595 \log_{10} (1 + f / 700), where ff is frequency in Hz, to model how equal perceptual intervals correspond to roughly logarithmic physical spacing above 500 Hz. Similarly, the Bark scale divides the spectrum into 24 critical bands, with center frequency zz approximated by z=13arctan⁡(0.00076f)+3.5arctan⁡((f7500)2),z = 13 \arctan \left( 0.00076 f \right) + 3.5 \arctan \left( \left( \frac{f}{7500} \right)^2 \right), where zz is in Barks and ff in Hz, reflecting the nonlinear resolution of the basilar membrane. These scales are essential for phonetic analysis, as they align acoustic measurements with the auditory periphery without delving into subjective perception. In speech applications, formant structures dominate vowel acoustics, with the first formant (F1) typically ranging 300–800 Hz for tongue height variations and the second formant (F2) 800–2500 Hz for front-back position; for example, in American English /i/, F1 ≈ 270 Hz and F2 ≈ 2290 Hz, while /ɑ/ shows F1 ≈ 730 Hz and F2 ≈ 1090 Hz. Consonants feature transient bursts, brief noise releases (5–50 ms duration) at stop consonant offsets, such as the high-frequency burst (above 4 kHz) in /t/ versus lower in /p/. Harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), measuring periodic versus aperiodic components in dB, quantifies voice quality; normal speech yields HNR > 20 dB, dropping in breathy or creaky phonation. These metrics highlight speech's spectral and temporal complexity. Instrumentation for visualizing these scales includes oscillograms, which plot over time to reveal duration and intensity envelopes, and spectrograms, displaying frequency versus time with intensity as darkness, ideal for identifying formants as dark bands and bursts as vertical striations. Tools like software generate these displays for precise phonetic measurement.

Perceptual Sensations

Auditory phonetics examines how acoustic properties of speech are mapped onto perceptual experiences, transforming objective sound attributes into subjective sensations that underpin speech understanding. These mappings are governed by psychophysical principles, where physical parameters like and intensity are nonlinearly related to perceived qualities such as pitch and . In speech, these sensations are particularly attuned to phonetic contrasts, enabling listeners to distinguish vowels, , and prosodic elements despite variability in production. Primary perceptual sensations in speech include pitch, which arises from the of (f₀), the rate of vocal fold typically ranging from 80-300 Hz in speech. Pitch is not a direct linear readout of f₀ but involves auditory processing that extracts periodicity cues, making it salient for intonation and speaker identity. For instance, rising f₀ contours are perceived as questions in many languages due to this sensitivity. , corresponding to scaling, reflects the perceived intensity of , where small changes in level (SPL) can alter emphasis or emotional tone; human ears are most sensitive to mid-frequencies (1-4 kHz) relevant to speech formants. , the perceptual quality distinguishing and spectra, stems from recognition of the spectral envelope—the overall shape of harmonic s—which differentiates steady-state vowels like /i/ (high F2) from fricatives like /s/ (broad noise). Speech-relevant perceptual mappings highlight how minimal acoustic changes yield noticeable phonetic differences. Just noticeable differences (JNDs) for frequencies, key to identity, are typically 1-2% relative variation; for example, a 10-20 Hz shift in the first formant (F1) around 500 Hz can signal a category boundary like /ɪ/ to /ɛ/, though finer discriminations (e.g., 1.5% for F2) support subtle perceptual shifts in continuous speech. Temporal integration for rhythm involves accumulating acoustic cues over 100-300 ms windows, allowing listeners to perceive isochronous patterns in timing despite natural variability, as in stress-timed English versus syllable-timed Spanish. These mappings ensure robust amid coarticulation and noise. Psychoacoustic principles further shape these sensations. Critical bands, divisions of the auditory spectrum into 24 frequency regions (each ~1 Bark wide), model how the filters speech; the approximates equal perceptual distance, with bands widening at higher frequencies (e.g., 100 Hz at low f, 3 kHz at high), aiding formant resolution in vowels. Masking effects in noisy environments occur when competing sounds raise detection thresholds within the same , reducing consonant intelligibility (e.g., /k/ masked by noise near 2-4 kHz); in speech-on-speech scenarios, informational masking from linguistic similarity exacerbates this, dropping word recognition by 20-50% at 0 dB . Key quantitative relations include the Weber-Fechner law for intensity , approximated as ΔI/I=k\Delta I / I = k where ΔI\Delta I is the JND in intensity, II is the base intensity, and k≈0.1k \approx 0.1 for speech levels around 60-80 dB SPL, indicating perceived grows logarithmically with amplitude. Equal-loudness contours, standardized in ISO 226, describe frequency-dependent sensitivity (e.g., 10 dB less sensitive at 100 Hz than 1 kHz at 40 phons); in , these are adapted to weight speech spectra, ensuring balanced of low-frequency vowels and high-frequency across SPLs. Individual variations influence sensation thresholds, with age-related hearing loss (presbycusis) impairing discrimination of pitch and formants after age 60 due to high-frequency cochlear damage, affecting perception. Hearing impairment widens critical bands, increasing susceptibility to masking and reducing the effectiveness of rhythm integration. Language background modulates perceptions; for example, speakers of tone languages exhibit enhanced discrimination of f₀ variations compared to speakers of non-tonal languages, aiding lexical tone perception. These factors underscore the need for context-specific models in auditory phonetics.

Phonological Applications

Suprasegmental Features

Suprasegmental features in auditory encompass prosodic elements that extend beyond individual speech segments, influencing the overall , stress, and intonation of utterances to facilitate comprehension. Intonation contours primarily arise from modulations in (F0), which listeners perceive as rising or falling pitch patterns that signal syntactic , such as declarative statements versus interrogatives. Stress perception, on the other hand, relies on integrated auditory cues including increased () and prolonged duration of stressed syllables, allowing listeners to distinguish prominent elements in the speech stream without relying solely on segmental contrasts. These features enable holistic processing of prosody, where the groups acoustic variations into meaningful patterns. Rhythmic grouping in suprasegmental involves auditory streaming mechanisms that help delineate boundaries, often through temporal cues like pauses or F0 resets, promoting efficient parsing of continuous speech. , the perceived regularity of timing units, varies across languages: in stress-timed languages like English, stressed s occur at approximately equal intervals despite varying durations, whereas -timed languages like Spanish exhibit more uniform lengths, aiding listeners in anticipating rhythmic structure for better . Perceptual integration of suprasegmental features plays a crucial role in interpreting , where specific patterns such as rising F0 at ends cue intent or surprise, enhancing emotional conveyance and coherence. Boundary detection in phrases further relies on prosodic cues like final lengthening and pitch declination, which signal syntactic breaks and guide real-time comprehension by highlighting phrase edges. Cross-cultural variations in suprasegmental processing are evident in tonal languages, where auditory distinguishes contour tones (dynamic pitch changes, e.g., rising or falling in Mandarin) from level tones (steady pitch heights), with native speakers showing heightened sensitivity to these contrasts for lexical differentiation. Musical training enhances suprasegmental acuity, improving the detection of subtle prosodic nuances like and intonation through sharpened pitch and timing discrimination, as demonstrated in meta-analyses of perceptual tasks. A key concept in auditory parsing of suprasegmentals is Pierrehumbert's autosegmental model, which represents intonation as tiered structures of high (H) and low (L) tones aligned with prosodic units, adapted for perceptual to explain how listeners decode F0 contours into phonological categories during online .

Research and Models

Experimental Methods

Experimental methods in auditory phonetics encompass a range of empirical techniques designed to probe how listeners perceive speech sounds, from basic acoustic features to complex phonological structures. These approaches integrate behavioral tasks, neurophysiological recordings, and computational manipulations to isolate perceptual mechanisms while controlling for variables such as stimulus variability and listener background. Seminal paradigms focus on quantifying sensitivity to phonetic contrasts, often revealing how auditory interfaces with linguistic knowledge. Behavioral paradigms form the cornerstone of auditory phonetics research, particularly through identification and discrimination tasks that assess —the phenomenon where listeners perceive speech sounds as discrete categories despite their continuous acoustic variation. In identification tasks, participants label stimuli from a synthesized continuum, such as varying voice onset time (VOT) between voiced and voiceless stops, to map perceptual boundaries. Discrimination tasks, like the AXB paradigm, present three stimuli per trial (A, X, B), where participants judge if X matches A or B, providing a measure of just-noticeable differences across category borders; enhanced discrimination within categories compared to between them supports categorical effects, as demonstrated in studies of stop consonant continua. Gating experiments further elucidate cue weighting by progressively revealing portions of a speech signal—from initial segments to full duration—and recording identification accuracy, thereby quantifying the relative contributions of cues like formant transitions or burst spectra to phonetic decisions; for instance, listeners may rely more on spectral cues for vowel identification in early gates. These methods, often conducted with controlled headphone presentation and adaptive psychophysical staircases to minimize bias, have been validated across diverse phonetic contrasts. Neuroimaging tools offer insights into the neural correlates of auditory phonetic processing, capturing both temporal dynamics and spatial localization. (EEG) and (MEG) excel in measuring event-related potentials (ERPs), such as the (MMN), which indexes pre-attentive detection of speech deviants in a stream of standards; for example, MMN amplitude increases for phonetic deviants like /ba/ amid /da/ standards, reflecting automatic auditory deviance detection in the around 150-250 ms post-stimulus onset. (fMRI) delineates activation along the auditory pathway, from primary to higher-order areas like the , during tasks involving phonetic categorization; speech stimuli evoke bilateral responses, with left-hemisphere dominance for phonological processing, as seen in contrasts between intelligible and degraded speech. These techniques are typically combined with behavioral measures to correlate neural activity with perceptual accuracy, using oddball paradigms to evoke reliable responses. Acoustic manipulation techniques enable precise control over speech stimuli to test perceptual hypotheses. Software like facilitates editing by resynthesizing vowels or consonants via (LPC), allowing researchers to isolate trajectories (e.g., F1/F2 shifts in diphthongs) while preserving naturalness; this has been instrumental in creating continua for studies. Noise-vocoded speech simulates processing by filtering signals into spectral bands (e.g., 8-16 channels) and modulating noise carriers with temporal envelopes, reducing to mimic implant limitations; such stimuli reveal perceptual trade-offs, where listeners adapt to envelope cues for despite degraded formants. These manipulations, often implemented in or scripts, ensure by basing edits on natural recordings. Participant considerations are critical to generalizing findings, with studies spanning cross-age and cross-linguistic designs to capture developmental and experiential influences on . Infants and children show broader perceptual categories than adults, as evidenced by paradigms tracking decline for non-native contrasts by 12 months; cross-linguistic comparisons, such as English vs. Swedish perception, highlight how native exposure sharpens category boundaries. Controls for confounds like involve dual-task designs or eye-tracking to monitor engagement, while diverse (e.g., age-matched monolinguals/bilinguals) mitigates biases in cue weighting. Recent advancements up to 2025 integrate immersive technologies and computational validation for more ecologically valid testing. (VR) environments simulate conversational contexts for prosody perception, presenting dynamic avatars with varied intonation to assess emotional or syntactic inference under divided ; pilot studies report improved sensitivity to pitch accents in VR compared to audio-alone setups. models, such as convolutional neural networks trained on spectrograms, validate perceptual theories by predicting behavioral discrimination from neural or acoustic features; for instance, support vector machines decoding EEG signals during phonetic tasks achieve over 80% accuracy in classifying category prototypes, bridging empirical data with theoretical models.

Theoretical Frameworks

Auditory phonetics encompasses theoretical frameworks that emphasize the role of auditory processing in shaping phonological representations and , distinct from earlier motor-based approaches. Core theories within this domain include the auditory theory of phonology, which posits that phonological structures are grounded in the perceptual recovery of articulatory gestures through auditory cues, accounting for phenomena like gestural overlap where overlapping articulatory movements obscure acoustic signals but are perceptually resolved based on listener expectations. Complementing this, the contrastivist hypothesis argues that phonemic inventories are defined solely by features that create auditory contrasts necessary to distinguish meaningful units, ignoring redundant phonetic details unless they serve perceptual differentiation. These theories integrate auditory sensitivity with phonological abstraction, explaining how listeners prioritize contrastive auditory properties in language systems. Perceptual models further elucidate how auditory experience influences . The Native Language Magnet (NLM) theory describes how infants' exposure to native language input creates perceptual "magnets" around prototypical phonetic categories, narrowing sensitivity to non-native contrasts while enhancing native ones during acquisition. Similarly, exemplar theory posits that relies on storing and matching detailed auditory exemplars of variable tokens, allowing listeners to generalize across talker-specific acoustics without abstracting to idealized phonemes. These models highlight the auditory system's adaptability to probabilistic input distributions in real-world speech. Computational approaches model auditory phonetics through probabilistic and neural mechanisms. Bayesian models of cue integration treat speech perception as inferring phonetic categories from multiple auditory cues (e.g., formant transitions and voice onset time) weighted by their reliability, optimizing decisions under uncertainty. Neural network simulations replicate categorical perception by training on acoustic continua, where networks learn to sharpen boundaries between categories, mimicking human auditory discrimination gradients. A simplified probabilistic formulation for category perception is given by: P(category∣signal)=softmax(∑iwi⋅cuei)P(\text{category} \mid \text{signal}) = \text{softmax}\left( \sum_i w_i \cdot \text{cue}_i \right) where wiw_i represent learned weights for individual auditory cues, and the softmax function normalizes outputs into probabilities. Theoretical evolutions reflect a shift from the motor theory's emphasis on articulatory simulation to auditory-centric views, recognizing that perception primarily processes acoustic invariants rather than inferred gestures. Recent developments in the 2020s incorporate predictive coding, where the auditory system generates top-down predictions of incoming speech signals to minimize perceptual errors, evidenced by hierarchical neural responses during listening tasks. These advancements critique earlier frameworks for underemphasizing auditory preprocessing, promoting integrative models that align perception with linguistic efficiency.

References

  1. https://sheffield.ac.uk/linguistics/home/all-about-linguistics/about-website/branches-linguistics/phonetics/what-do-phoneticians-study
  2. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-role-of-phonetics-in-linguistics-its-applications-and-various-types-105471.html
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2606790/
  4. https://people.engr.tamu.edu/rgutier/lectures/sp/l3.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2921848/
  6. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2153
  7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=On+the+Sensations+of+Tone+as+a+Physiological+Basis+for+the+Theory+of+Music&author=H+L+F+Helmholtz&publication_year=1875&doi=10.1037%2F10838-000
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3185290/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fechner/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2746041/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5456457/
  12. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-11687-001
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912004703
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447025000269
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02105-9
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004544/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2606791/
  18. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/st/DB_SPL.html
  19. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-901-language-and-its-structure-i-phonology-fall-2010/bc254c203b8439c1532d3c14531eeced_MIT24_901F10_lec08.pdf
  20. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/bbt/Bark_Frequency_Scale.html
  21. https://sail.usc.edu/~lgoldste/General_Phonetics/Source_Filter/SFc.html
  22. https://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/hcs6367/lec3.pdf
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9228816/
  24. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~saito/data/auditory/moore_psychoacoustics.pdf
  25. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-phonetics/fundamental-frequency-and-pitch/910A3C0AB84EE66669DD0F4A834EB282
  26. https://hal.science/hal-03596403v1/document
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3826062/
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15079511_Formant-frequency_discrimination_for_isolated_English_vowels
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9821340/
  30. https://hal.science/hal-00142964v1/document
  31. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Bark_Frequency_Scale.html
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167229302030115X
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037859550900286X
  34. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00146/full
  35. https://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jpierrehumbert/publications/Pierrehumbert_PhD.pdf
  36. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/124/4/2263/980812/Perception-of-rhythmic-grouping-depends-on
  37. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76594-1
  38. https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-022-00439-w
  39. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.765945/full
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10100610/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447023000670
  42. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065
  43. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/steriade/papers/PhoneticsInPhonology.pdf
  44. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/35/paper3371.pdf
  45. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.97.22.11850
  46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-bilingual-phonetics-and-phonology/bilingual-speech-and-exemplar-theory/563908C3E3E22449420BED6D87E25468
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21637344/
  48. https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/34/2/437/107914/Categorical-Perception-A-Groundwork-for-Deep
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10038805/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.