塞辅音范畴通达的时间进程：来自语境效应的证据

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用语境效应范式，以汉语听者为被试，在三个实验中考察了塞辅音声学信息和语音信息激活的时间进程。实验1语境刺激是/ta/、/ka/音节和/ta/、/ka/塞音段的声学模拟音，目标刺激是/ta/-/ka/对比连续体，结果发现，塞音声学信息激活没有产生语境效应。实验2语境刺激是/ta/、/ka/音节和/ta/、/ka/塞音段，结果发现塞音语音信息激活产生了显著的对比语境效应。实验3变化塞音段和目标刺激之间的间隔，系统考察塞音范畴通达的时间进程，结果发现，塞音知觉中听觉加工阶段向语音加工阶段的转变约发生于刺激加工后120 ms。实验结果揭示了塞辅音知觉中音位范畴通达的时间进程。

关键词: 塞辅音, 音位范畴, 知觉, 语境效应, 时间进程

Abstract: With Chinese listeners as participants, the study examined the time courses of stop consonant activation using context effect tasks. Experiment 1 examined the context effects of stop acoustic features. A /ta/-/ka/ continuum acted as target stimuli, the acoustic analogues of initial 80-ms segments of syllables /ta/ and /ka/, and acoustic analogues of syllables /ta/ and /ka/ acted as context stimuli. The results showed that neither syllable analogs nor stop segment analogs exhibited context effects. Experiment 2 examined the context effects of stop phonetic categories. Syllables /ta/ and /ka/, and 80-ms stop segments acted as context stimuli. The results found that both endpoint syllables and 80-ms segments showed contrastive context effects. Experiment 3 varied ISI between stop segments and target stimuli to examine the time courses of stop category activation. The results showed that the transition from auditory processing to phonetic processing stage occurs about 120 ms after stimuli processing. The present findings disclose the time courses of stop auditory and phonetic processing.

Key words: stop consonants, phonetic category, perception, context effects, time courses

中图分类号:

B842

刘文理, 李芷溢, 王晓文, 周详. 塞辅音范畴通达的时间进程：来自语境效应的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 200-207.

LIU Wenli, LI Zhiyi, WANG Xiaowen, ZHOU Xiang. The Time Courses of Stop Consonant Category Activation: Evidence From Context Effects[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(2): 200-207.

参考文献

刘文理, 周详, 乐国安. (2014). 元音范畴知觉中特征分析和整合的时间进程. 心理科学, 37(1), 21-26
Bidelman, G. M., Moreno, S., & Alain, C. (2013). Tracing the emergence of categorical speech perception in the human auditory system. NeuroImage, 79, 201-212, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.093.
Brodbeck, C., Hong, L. E., & Simon, J. Z. (2018). Rapid transformation from auditory to linguistic representations of continuous speech. Current Biology, 28(24), 3976-3983.e5, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.042.
Chang, E. F., Rieger, J. W., Johnson, K., Berger, M. S., Barbaro, N. M., & Knight, R. T. (2010). Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nature Neuroscience, 13(11), 1428-1432, doi: 10.1038/nn.2641.
Contini, E. W., Wardle, S. G., & Carlson, T. A. (2017). Decoding the time-course of object recognition in the human brain: From visual features to categorical decisions. Neuropsychologia, 105, 165-176, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.02.013.
Garrison, L. F., & Sawusch, J. R. (1986). Adaptation of place perception for stops: Effects of spectral match between adaptor and test series. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(6), 419-430.
Holt, L. L. (2005). Temporally nonadjacent nonlinguistic sounds affect speech categorization. Psychological Science, 16(4), 305-312, doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01532.x.
Holt, L. L. (2006). Speech categorization in context: Joint effects of nonspeech and speech precursors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(6), 4016-4026, doi: 10.1121/1.2195119.
Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2002). Behavioral examinations of the level of auditory processing of speech context effects. Hearing Research, 167(1-2), 156-169, doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00383-0.
Khalighinejad, B., Cruzatto da Silva, G., & Mesgarani, N. (2017). Dynamic encoding of acoustic features in neural responses to continuous speech. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(8), 2176-2185, doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2383-16.2017.
Li, F. P., Menon, A., & Allen, J. B. (2010). A psychoacoustic method to find the perceptual cues of stop consonants in natural speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(4), 2599-2610, doi: 10.1121/1.3295689.
Liebenthal, E., Desai, R., Ellingson, M. M., Ramachandran, B., Desai, A., & Binder, J. R. (2010). Specialization along the left superior temporal sulcus for auditory categorization. Cerebral Cortex, 20(12), 2958-2970.
Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects in speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(4), 602-619.
Lotto, A. J., Sullivan, S. C., & Holt, L. L. (2003). Central locus for nonspeech context effects on phonetic identification (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(1), 53-56, doi: 10.1121/1.1527959.
Massaro, D. W. (1989). Multiple book review of speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(4), 741-755, doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00025619.
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-86, doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0.
Samuel, A. G. (1986). Red herring detectors and speech perception: In defense of selective adaptation. Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 452-499, doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90007-1.
Samuel, A. G., & Kat, D. (1996). Early levels of analysis of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 676-694.
Sawusch, J. R., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1983). Auditory and phonetic processes in place perception for stops. Perception & Psychophysics, 34(6), 560-568.
Tartter, V. C., & Eimas, P. D. (1975). The role of auditory feature detectors in the perception of speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 18(4), 293-298.
Turkeltaub, P. E., & Coslett, H. B. (2010). Localization of sublexical speech perception components. Brain & Language, 114(1), 1-15.
Wallace, A. B., & Blumstein, S. E. (2009). Temporal integration in vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(3), 1704-1711, doi: 10.1121/1.3077219.
Wu, C. T., Crouzet, S. M., Thorpe, S. J., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. F. (2015). At 120 msec you can spot the animal but you don't yet know it's a dog. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(1), 141-149, doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00701.

[1]	金花, 严世振, 单金磊, 刘婷. 面孔生命性加工的时间进程：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 577-584.
[2]	丁倩, 罗星雨. 歧视知觉对留守青少年攻击行为的影响：多重中介效应分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 346-352.
[3]	李赛男, 闫国利, 王亚丽, 刘敏, 赵淑萍. 一年级小学生阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[4]	游志麒, 周宗奎. 儿童社交自我知觉的发展及其与孤独感和安静退缩的关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 473-479.
[5]	高晓雷, 沈梦, 任晓飞, 白学军, 高蕾. 高、低汉语水平藏–汉读者汉语阅读知觉广度及预视效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 297-303,333.
[6]	张嘉欣, 陈璇, 钱彬彬, 韩丹, 王璐, 张智君. 事件切割对时距知觉的影响：基于记忆碎片效应的研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 145-151.
[7]	孙芳, 李欢欢, 包佳敏, 甄子昂, 宋巍, 蒋松源. 教师支持、同伴支持与中学生心理危机的关系：歧视知觉的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 209-215.
[8]	梁紫平, 单金磊, 王鹏鹏, 韩宗义, 金花. 整体运动知觉老化的方向不同步性及其总效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 8-15.
[9]	高超, 李士一, 章鹏, 赵光. 基于双眼视差探讨深度知觉信息对背景线索效应的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 16-21,29.
[10]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 偏侧化颜色范畴知觉不依赖于语言?[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(5): 583-589.
[11]	金花, 朱子良, 严世振, 梁紫平, 艾克旦 ? 艾斯卡尔, 尹建忠, 姜云鹏, 林琳. 老年人整体运动敏感性降低的脑灰质体积变化基础[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(5): 603-610.
[12]	巫金根, 刘志方, 刘妮娜, 黄发杰. 高低水平汉英二语者阅读难易英语句子的知觉广度[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 460-465.
[13]	朱鹏, 常若松. 性别和情境危险程度对行人危险知觉的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 113-120.
[14]	金花, 刘婷, 尹德圣, 邵梦灵, 朱子良. 羽毛球运动提高成人整体运动知觉敏感性—基于知觉模板模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 721-728.
[15]	邓春婷, 刘岩. 元认知的领域特殊性：来自知觉和高阶层次的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 480-487.