Meeting Abstracts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROGRAM OF The 113th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America Hyatt RegencyHotel © Indianapolis,Indiana ß 11-15 May 1987 MONDAY EVENING, 11 MAY 1987 CELEBRATION HALL, 7:00 TO 9:00 P.M. Tutorial Lecture Digital signalprocessing. Lawrence R. Rabiner(AT&T Bell Laboratories,Speech Research Department, Room 2D-533, Murray Hill, NJ 07974) In all fieldsof acoustics,the responseof systemsof interestinvolves the analysisand the processingof a signal.This signalcan be the radiatedacoustic pressure from a hydrophone,the accelerationof a massdue to localacoustic excitation, the speech of a spokenword, or themelodious pattern of a musicinstrument. In each of thesecases the signal has to beprocessed and analyzed. The field of digitalsignal processing isone area that hasbeen attracting more interest over the last few years. In thistutorial the field of digitalsignal processing (DSP) will beexplained together with the theory of linearsystems, sampling, and spectrum analysis. Compari- sonsbetween digital and analog processing will be discussed.Other topics that will be presentedare discrete Fourier series,sampling, aliasing, FIR and fIR filters,spectrum analysis, and fast Fourier transform.The sessionwill concludewith detailedexamples of applicationsof digitalsystems in differentareas of interestsuch ascommunication in generaland speechprocessing. TUESDAY MORNING, 12 MAY 1987 REGENCY BALLROOM A & B, 8:15 TO 11:54 A.M. SessionA. SpeechCommunication I: SpeechPerception Robert A. Fox, Chairman Departmentof Speechand HearingScience, Ohio State University,Columbus, Ohio 432]0 Chairman's Introduetion---8:15 ContributedPapers 8:20 tiveand negative attributes, the implications of whichwill bediscussed for a neuromorphictheory of speechperception. [Work supported,in part, A1. The problem of serial order in auditory word recognition.Howard by NIH. ] C. Nusbaum (Department of BehavioralSciences, The Universityof Chicago,58;48 S. UniversityAvenue, Chicago, IL 60637), Steven L. Greenspan(AT&T Bell Laboratories,Naperville, IL 60566), and Mathew Jensen(Department of BehavioralSciences, The Universityof 8:32 Chicago,Chicago, IL 60637) A2. The neighborhoodactivation model of auditory word recognition. Recently,there has been a resurgenceof interestin paralleldistributed PaulA. Lute (SpeechResearch Laboratory, Department of Psychology, processingmodels of humanperception. When speechperception is mod- Indiana University, Bloomington,IN 47405) eledin thistype of spatiallydistributed network, a problemarises in cod- ing the temporalorder of perceptualunits such as phoneroes or words.In The neighborhoodactivation model (NAM) of auditoryword recog- general,three solutions to thisproblem have been proposed: First, percep- nitiondescribes the processes by whicha stimulusword is identified in the tual unitsmay be contextcoded such as in context-sensitiveallophones. contextof phoneticallysimilar words activated in memory.Stimulus in- The orderof unitspresented at differentpoints in time canbe determined put activatesa setof acoustic-phoneticpatterns in memorythat mustbe by matchingthe context"edges" of eachactivated unit. Second,different discriminatedand chosenamong. These acoustic-phonetic patterns re- portionsof the networkmay representdifferent time frames.By this ap- ceiveactivation levels proportional to their similaritiesto the stimulus proach,the recognition of eachsuccessive perceptual unit activates repre- input.The activationlevels may thenbe adjustedby biasesarising from sentationsin successivesegments of the network.Finally, temporalorder higher-levelinformation, such as word frequency.The interactionof the may ba representedin the computational dynamicsof the network. In this bottom-up sensoryinput and top-down biasinginformation is assumedto case,expectations about serial order are used to shiftthe focus of process- takeplace within individualprocessing units called word decisionunits. ing attentionwithin the network.Thus, while the first two approaches These units monitor the activation levelsof their acoustic-phoneticpat- recodetemporal order into a spatialor spatial-likerepresentation, the terns, any higher-levelinformation that may optimize decisionsamong third usesa temporalrepresentation. Each of theseapproaches has posi- the competingpatterns, and the activity of all other word decisionunits. Sl J. Acoust.Soc. Am. Suppl.1, Vol. 81, Spring1987 113thMeeting: Acoustical Society of America Sl The NAM statesthat increasingthe numberof acoustic-phoneticpat- of talkeruncertainty on encoding speech into memory. In orderto exam- ternsactivated in memoryby thestimulus input will slowprocessing and inethis problem, a serial-orderedrecall experiment was conducted. The reduceidentification accuracy. It alsostates that effects of wordfrequency stimuliwere CVC monosyllabicEnglish words produced by different are directly tied to the numberand nature of similar wordsactivated in maleand female talkers. Listeners were presented with lists of tenitems memoryand that wordfrequency is notintrinsic to theactivation levels of producedby a singlertalker or listsof tenitems produced by multiple the acoustic-phoneticpatterns. [Work supportedby NIH Grant NS- talkers,and were required to recallthe items in theorder presented. Per- 12179.] centcorrect recall in theprimary region of theserial position curve was loweras the amountof talkervariability within the listsincreased. The resultssuggest that the encoding of speechinto memory is affectedby uncertaintyfrom trial to trial due to talker variability. The hypothesis that 8:44 perceptualprocesses involved in talker normalizationare locatedat an auditory-to-phoneticlevelwill be discussed. [Work supported by NIH.] A3. Auditory word recognitionis not more sensitiveto word-initial than to word-final stimulus information. M. J. van der Vlugt and S. G. Nooteboom (Institute for PerceptionResearch, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) 9:20 Severalaccounts of the humanrecognition of spokenwords assign A6. The lexicalstatus effect on placeof articulationand voice onset time specialimportance to stimulus-wordonsets. The experimentdescribed contrasts.Marjorie A. Reed (Departmentof Psychology,Cleveland herewas designed to findout whethersuch a word-beginningsuperiority StateUniversity, Cleveland, OH 44115) effectis due to a specialsensitivity of the word recognitionprocess to Ganong [J. Exp. Psychol.:Hum. Percept.Perform. 6, 110-125 word-initialstimulus information, or ratherto the specialimportance of (1980) ] firstreported that the presenceof a wordat oneend of a voice word onsetsfor the proper alignmentof stimuli with word candidates. onsettime seriesinfluenced the classificationof stimuli near the bound- Twenty-eightpolysyllabic monomorphematic test words were selected, ary.Fox [Percept.Psychophys. 34, 526-540(1983)] reporteda similar all havingthe special characteristic that their left-to-right and right-to-left effectusing place of articulationstimuli. In thepresent experiment, the recognitionpoints coincided in the samephoneme. These words were lexicalstatus effect on two voice onset time continuua (/bot/to/pot/and synthesizedfrom diphones, and, of eachword, four versionswere pre- /bok/ to /pok/) wascompared to that on two placeof articulation pared:(a) withoutnoise; (b) with noisemasking segment perception in continuua(/bon/ to /don/ and/bop/ to/dop/). Resultsshowed effects theword-initial fragment; (c) with noisemasking segment perception in of lexicalstatus for bothtypes of stimuli.Ambiguous tokens near the the word-finalfragment; and (d) with noisemasking the wholeword. categoryboundary were perceived in favorof theword, while the classifi- Thesestimuli were, appropriately blocked, distributed over four stimulus cationof endpointstimuli was not influenced.The lexicalstatus effect was tapes,and presentedto four groupsof 12 subjectsfor word recognition. significantlylarger for voice onset time stimuli than for place of articula- Percentagescorrectly recognized real words were, for thefour conditions: tionstimuli. This difference may result from the time required for the (a) 89%, (b) 54%, (c) 59%, and (d) 13%. The differencebetween (b) lexicalstatus effect to develop, suggesting alternate interpretation ofFox's and (c) wasnot significant. This is interpretedas evidence that ( 1) audi- data on the time courseof the effect.Implications for interactiveand tory word recognitionis not moresensitive to word-initialthan to word- separatestage models are discussed. finalstimulus information, and (2) stimulusinformation from all partsof a spokenword can be used efficiently, as long as its proper time alignment with word candidates in the mind of the listener is ensured. 9:32 A7.Context effects in spoken language. Robert Pedlow (Speech 8:56 ResearchLaboratory, Department of Psychology,Indiana University, Bloomington,IN 47405) A4. Effects of talker uncertaintyI: Auditory word recognition.Iohn W. Mullennix,David B. Pisoni,and ChristopherS. Martin (Speech Theeffects of differenttypes of linguisticcontext on theintelligibility ResearchLaboratory, Department of Psychology,Indiana University, of spokenlanguage were examined. A setof wordswas produced by the Bloomington,IN 47405) samespeakers in threedifferent types of linguisticcontext: ordinary sen- tences,anomalous sentences, and a word list context. The anomalous The productionand resulting acoustic composition of spokenwords sentenceswere constructed by changingone nonadjacent-to-target word varyas functions of individualtalker characteristics. However, the effects to an anomalousalternative.