Developmental differences in short-lived auditory memory for various classes of speech sounds

Spoken serial recall by second-grade children of aurally presented lists of digits, synthetic stop consonants, and synthetic vowels showed a significant suffix effect (selective debilitation of recall at the final position under the stimulus suffix condition) only for the lists of digits and not for either consonants or vowels. Making the synthetic syllables more distinctive by simultaneously covarying the consonant and vowel failed to produce a suffix effect under a strict scoring criterion which required both consonant and vowel to be recalled correctly; however, when subjects were given credit for partially correct answers the suffix effect emerged. Adults given the redundant consonant-vowel syllables showed a significant suffix effect with the strict scoring criterion. However, when consonants and vowels varied orthogonally, the adults' performance showed the suffix effect only under the lenient scoring criterion. An argument is made for equivalence of basic memorial processing between children and adults, the difference being in the number of features needed to disambiguate the target items and in the ability to integrate these features to exploit interstimulus redundancy.     

Misreadings by beginning readers of Serbo-Croatian

Errors in reading aloud by the beginning reader have been interpreted as reflecting the difficulty and the importance of phonemic segmentation for the acquisition of reading skills. Results from previous studies on English words patterned as consonant-vowel-consonant showed: (1) more errors on vowels than on consonants; (2) more errors on word final consonants than on word initial consonants; and suggested that (3) consonant errors were based on phonetic confusions while vowel errors were not. In contrast to their English counterparts, the beginning readers of Serbo-Croatian tested in the present study committed proportionally fewer errors on their reading of vowels than of consonants but in common with their English counterparts, their reading of final consonants was more vulnerable to error than their reading of initial consonants. This pattern of errors was found for both word and pseudoword consonant-vowel-consonant structures and the pattern of vowel confusion, like the pattern of consonant confusions, was rationalized by speech-related factors. The differences between the patterns of confusions for Serbo-Croatian and for English could be due to the difference between the two orthographies in the precision with which they represent the phonology or to the fact that the vowels of English are qualitatively less distinct phonologically than the vowels of Serbo-Croatian.     

Cross-lingual measurements of interconsonantal differences

Native speakers recorded pairs of consonant-vowel (CV) and vowel (V) syllables in Japanese, American English, Serbo-Croatian, and Italian. All initial consonants of each language were paired with each other. For example, a speaker would read a-a, a-pa, a-ma, etc., through all of the consonants. The next series would commence pi-i, pi-pi, pi-bi, pi-mi, etc., through the consonants. Five vowels were used. Following typical instructions of the method of magnitude estimation, native panels of 20 to 26 listeners, all university students, individually assessed the sameness or difference of a pair of syllables. The measures were normalized and averaged for each series of pairs of syllables.Sixteen of the prevocalic sounds, including the absence of a consonant, were deemed phonetically similar from language to language. First, intercorrelations were computed among the languages with respect to the 16 judgments made of the differences between each consonant and the consonants of that language, itself included. Second, a factor analysis was made of each matrix of interconsonantal distances. Third, a cluster analysis was made of the 64 (=16×4) sounds of the four languages.     

Beyond stop consonants: Consonantal specificity in early lexical acquisition

Previous research has shown that 20-month-old infants can simultaneously learn two words that only differ by one of their consonants, but fail to do so when the words differ only by one of their vowels. This asymmetry was interpreted as developmental evidence for the proposal that consonants play a more important role than vowels in lexical specification. However, the consonant/vowel distinction was confounded with another distinction, that of the continuous status of the phonemes used (discontinuous stop consonants versus continuous vowels). The present study investigated 20-month-olds’ use of phonetic specificity while simultaneously learning two words that differ by a continuous consonant. The results obtained parallel those previously found for stop consonants, confirming the original claim of an asymmetry between the roles of consonants and vowels at the lexical level.     

Mechanisms of aural encoding: VII. Differences in consonant and vowel recall in a Peterson and Peterson short-term memory paradigm

Ss either saw or heard lists of three syllables which differed by their initial consonant phoneme or their final vowel phoneme. After 5 or 15 sec of mental arithmetic, Ss were required to recall the syllables. Following auditory presentation, vowels were recalled more accurately than consonants in all serial positions and at both delays. In addition, spoken consonants and vowels showed primacy and recency effects. Following visual presentation, consonants and vowels were recalled with equal accuracy at both delays, and no recency effects were observed. These data suggest that superior recall of vowels over consonants results from differential decay of these stimuli in an acoustic storage. These data are consistent with previous experiments showing that, during serial recall, the final vowels in a sequence are recalled more accurately than the final consonants.     

Effects of phoneme repertoire

In three experiments, listeners detected vowel or consonant targets in lists of CV syllables constructed from five vowels and five consonants. Responses were faster in a predictable context (e.g., listening for a vowel target in a list of syllables all beginning with the same consonant) than in an unpredictable context (e.g., listening for a vowel target in a list of syllables beginning with different consonants). In Experiment 1, the listeners’ native language was Dutch, in which vowel and consonant repertoires are similar in size. The difference between predictable and unpredictable contexts was comparable for vowel and consonant targets. In Experiments 2 and 3, the listeners’ native language was Spanish, which has four times as many consonants as vowels; here effects of an unpredictable consonant context on vowel detection were significantly greater than effects of an unpredictable vowel context on consonant detection. This finding suggests that listeners’ processing of phonemes takes into account the constitution of their language’s phonemic repertoire and the implications that this has for contextual variability.     

Mechanisms of aural encoding: VI. Consonants and vowels are remembered as subsets of distinctive features

An attempt was made to examine the manner in which consonants and vowels are coded in short-term memory. under identical recall conditions. Ss were presented with sequences of consonant-vowel digrams for serial recall. Sequences were composed of randomly presented consonants paired with/a/ or randomly presented vowels paired with /d/. Halle’s distinctive feature system was used to generate predictions concerning the frequency of intrusion errors. among phonemes. These predictions were based on the assumption that phonemes are discriminated in memory in terms of their component distinctive features, so that intrusions should most frequently occur between phonemes sharing similar distinctive features. The analysis of intrusion errors revealed that each consonant and vowel phoneme was coded m short-term memory by a particular combination of distinctive features which differed from one phoneme to another. A given phoneme was coded by the same set of distinctive features regardless of the number of syllables in the sequence. However, distinctive feature theories were not able to predict the frequency of intrusion errors for phonemes presented in the middle serial positions of a sequence with 100% accuracy. The results of the experiment support the notion that consonant and vowel phonemes are coded in a similar manner in STM and that this coding involves the retention of a specific set of distinctive features for each phoneme.     

Cerebral Asymmetries in Processing Strategies for Letter and Symbol Trigrams

Several studies have shown that laterally presented consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) strings produce both superior performance, and a more wholistic processing strategy in the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LHEM), and a more sequential strategy in the inferior left visual field (LVF). To determine whether these strategies are applied to other types of trigrams subjects (n= 30) were asked to identify consonant and symbol trigrams briefly projected unilaterally to the LVF or RVF, or bilaterally (the same trigram in both fields—BVF). A second group of subjects (n= 30) first practiced pronouncing consonant trigrams and then viewed them tachistoscopically. Both tasks yield RVF advantages. Symbols are processed more wholistically in the LVF, more sequentially in the RVF and in an intermediate pattern when presented bilaterally. In contrast, subjects seem to chunk letters as bigrams, and do so equally well in all fields, and visual field differences in strategies emerge for consonants only when they are pronounced. Pronounceability of consonant trigrams, assessed with ratings and vocal reaction times, was predicted by orthographic regularity. Since the RHEM has limited phonetic skills, but it, like the LHEM, is privy to information on orthographic regularity, the error pattern on consonant strings indicates non-phonetic processing, whereas the RVF wholistic strategy for consonant–vowel–consonant strings appears to reflect phonetic processing.     

Testing the two-cycle model by different word types

The two-cycle model assumes that consonants in words are processed more quickly than vowels. This study tested the two-cycle model with different word types using a priming task which presented consonants or vowels before the target. Analysis showed presenting consonants before the target was beneficial in processing the target for the words with the letter compositions of CWC and CVCV. In contrast, presenting vowels before the target was beneficial for the words with the letter composition of VCVC. The words with the letter composition of VCCV showed no difference between the consonant prime and the vowel prime. The two-cycle model was not supported across all types of words.     

Call me Alix,not Elix: vowels are more important than consonants in own‐name recognition at 5 months

Consonants and vowels differ acoustically and articulatorily, but also functionally: Consonants are more relevant for lexical processing, and vowels for prosodic/syntactic processing. These functional biases could be powerful bootstrapping mechanisms for learning language, but their developmental origin remains unclear. The relative importance of consonants and vowels at the onset of lexical acquisition was assessed in French‐learning 5‐month‐olds by testing sensitivity to minimal phonetic changes in their own name. Infants’ reactions to mispronunciations revealed sensitivity to vowel but not consonant changes. Vowels were also more salient (on duration and intensity) but less distinct (on spectrally based measures) than consonants. Lastly, vowel (but not consonant) mispronunciation detection was modulated by acoustic factors, in particular spectrally based distance. These results establish that consonant changes do not affect lexical recognition at 5 months, while vowel changes do; the consonant bias observed later in development does not emerge until after 5 months through additional language exposure.     

Effect of consonant/vowel letter organisation on the syllable counting task: evidence from English

Recent studies in alphabetic writing systems have investigated whether the status of letters as consonants or vowels influences the perception and processing of written words. Here, we examined to what extent the organisation of consonants and vowels within words affects performance in a syllable counting task in English. Participants were asked to judge the number of syllables in written words that were matched for the number of spoken syllables but comprised either 1 orthographic vowel cluster less than the number of syllables (hiatus words, e.g., triumph) or as many vowel clusters as syllables (e.g., pudding). In 3 experiments, we found that readers were slower and less accurate on hiatus than control words, even when phonological complexity (Experiment 1), number of reduced vowels (Experiment 2), and number of letters (Experiment 3) were taken into account. Interestingly, for words with or without the same number of vowel clusters and syllables, participants’ errors were more likely to underestimate the number of syllables than to overestimate it. Results are discussed in a cross-linguistic perspective.     

Categorical perception: effects of the extent and rate of spectral change

ABSTRACT

Two experiments evaluated a potential explanation of categorical perception (CP) for place of articulation – namely, that listeners derive limited information from rapid spectral changes. Experiment 1 examined vowel context effects for /b/–/d/ continua that included consonant–vowel tokens with F2 onset frequencies that varied systematically from the F2 frequencies of their corresponding steady-states. Phoneme categorisation sharply shifted with F2 direction at locations along the continuum where discrimination performance peaked, indicating CP. Experiment 2 compared findings for a replicated condition against conditions with vowels reduced to match consonant duration or consonants extended to match vowels. CP was similarly obtained for replicated and vowel-reduced conditions. However, listeners frequently perceived diphthongs centrally on the consonant-extended continuum. Some listeners demonstrated CP, although aggregate performance appeared more continuous. These experiments indicate a model based upon the perceived direction of frequency transitions.     

The relative position priming effect depends on whether letters are vowels or consonants

The relative position priming effect is a type of subset priming in which target word recognition is facilitated as a consequence of priming the word with some of its letters, maintaining their relative position (e.g., csn as a prime for casino). Five experiments were conducted to test whether vowel-only and consonant-only subset primes contribute equally to this effect. Experiment 1 revealed that this subset priming effect emerged when primes were composed exclusively of consonants, compared with vowel-only primes (csn-casino vs. aia-animal). Experiment 2 tested the impact of letter frequency in this asymmetry. Subset priming effects were obtained for both high- and low-frequency consonants but not for vowels, which rules out a letter frequency explanation. Experiment 3 tested the role of phonology and its contribution to the priming effects observed, by decreasing the prime duration. The results showed virtually the same effects as in the previous experiments. Finally, Experiments 4 and 5 explored the influence of repeated letters in the primes on the magnitude of the priming effects obtained for consonant and vowel subset primes (iuo-dibujo and aea-madera vs. mgn-imagen and rtr-frutero). Again, the results confirmed the priming asymmetry. We propose that a functional distinction between consonants and vowels, mainly based on the lexical constraints imposed by each of these types of letters, might provide an explanation for the whole set of results.     

The relation between discriminability and memory for vowels,consonants, and silent-center vowels

People remember lists of vowel-contrasting syllables better than lists that vary only in stop consonant identity. Most views suggest that this difference is due to the structure of immediate memory and the greater discriminability of vowels compared with consonants. In all of these views, there is a presumed systematic relationship between discriminability and recall so that the more discriminable an item, the better that item should be recalled. The 11 experiments reported here measured the relative discriminability of and compared serial recall for (1) intact syllables that varied only in the medial vowel, (2) intact syllables that varied only in the initial consonant, and (3) syllables with the center vowel replaced by silence (so-called silent-center vowels). When item discriminability, as measured by identification, was equated for consonant-contrasting and silent-center lists, serial recall performance was also equal. However, even when the vowels were less discriminable than the consonants or silentcenter vowels, serial recall performance for the vowels was still better. These results are problematic for theories based on acoustic discriminability but can be explained parsimoniously by Nairne’s (1990) feature model.     

Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons

Languages differ in the constitution of their phonemic repertoire and in the relative distinctiveness of phonemes within the repertoire. In the present study, we asked whether such differences constrain spoken-word recognition, via two word reconstruction experiments, in which listeners turned non-words into real words by changing single sounds. The experiments were carried out in Dutch (which has a relatively balanced vowel-consonant ratio and many similar vowels) and in Spanish (which has many more consonants than vowels and high distinctiveness among the vowels). Both Dutch and Spanish listeners responded significantly faster and more accurately when required to change vowels as opposed to consonants; when allowed to change any phoneme, they more often altered vowels than consonants. Vowel information thus appears to constrain lexical selection less tightly (allow more potential candidates) than does consonant information, independent of language-specific phoneme repertoire and of relative distinctiveness of vowels.     

Evaluating computational models in cognitive neuropsychology: the case from the consonant/vowel distinction

Caramazza et al. [Caramazza, A., Chialant, D., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2000). Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature, 403(6768), 428-430.] report two patients who exhibit a double dissociation between consonants and vowels in speech production. The patterning of this double dissociation cannot be explained by appealing to sub-phonemic distinctions, such as sonority level or damage to specific phonological features. They argue that consonant/vowel status is an autonomous level of representation. Monaghan and Shillcock [Monaghan, P., & Shillcock, R. (2003). Connectionist modelling of the separable processing of consonants and vowels. Brain and Language, 86(1), 83-98.] present computational models which supposedly exhibit a similar double dissociation. They contend that these models can explain the patient data, without appeal to such supra-phonemic distinctions as consonant/vowel status. Here we argue that their claim fails to meet two necessary criteria. Their models do not fit the pattern of the patient data, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Furthermore, the motivation for these models is unclear beyond just being an attempt to explain this specific phenomenon. We conclude that these models, in their current form, do not provide an alternative explanation to the representation of consonants and vowels.     

Vowel bias in Danish word‐learning: processing biases are language‐specific

The present study explored whether the phonological bias favoring consonants found in French‐learning infants and children when learning new words (Havy & Nazzi, 2009; Nazzi, 2005) is language‐general, as proposed by Nespor, Peña and Mehler (2003), or varies across languages, perhaps as a function of the phonological or lexical properties of the language in acquisition. To do so, we used the interactive word‐learning task set up by Havy and Nazzi (2009), teaching Danish‐learning 20‐month‐olds pairs of phonetically similar words that contrasted either on one of their consonants or one of their vowels, by either one or two phonological features. Danish was chosen because it has more vowels than consonants, and is characterized by extensive consonant lenition. Both phenomena could disfavor a consonant bias. Evidence of word‐learning was found only for vocalic information, irrespective of whether one or two phonological features were changed. The implication of these findings is that the phonological biases found in early lexical processing are not language‐general but develop during language acquisition, depending on the phonological or lexical properties of the native language.     

The structure of graphemic representations

The analysis of the spelling performance of a brain-damaged dysgraphic subject is reported. The subject's spelling performance was affected by various graphotactic factors, such as the distinction between consonant and vowel and graphosyllabic structure. For example, while the subject produced many consonant and vowel deletion errors when these were part of consonant and vowel clusters, respectively (e.g., sfondo----sondo; giunta----gunta), deletions were virtually never produced for single consonants flanked by two vowels (e.g., onesto----oesto) or for single vowels flanked by two consonants (e.g., tirare----trare). The demonstration that graphosyllabic factors affect spelling performance disconfirms the hypothesis that graphemic representations consist simply of linearly ordered sets of graphemes. It is concluded that graphemic representations are multidimensional structures: one dimension specifies the grapheme identities that comprise the spelling of a word; a second dimension specifies the consonant/vowel status of the graphemes; a third dimension represents the graphosyllabic structure of the grapheme string; and, a fourth dimension provides information about geminate features.