A speech‐perception training tool to improve phonetic transcription

2005 ◽  
Vol 118 (3) ◽  
pp. 1862-1862
Author(s):  
Noelle R. Padgitt ◽  
Benjamin Munson ◽  
Edward J. Carney
2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW H. LEE ◽  
ROY LYSTER

ABSTRACTThis study investigated whether different types of corrective feedback (CF) in second language speech perception training have differential effects on second language speech production. One hundred Korean learners of English were assigned to five different groups and participated in eight computer-assisted perception training sessions focusing on English vowels. While no CF was provided to the control group, participants in the four treatment groups received one of three types of auditory CF or a visual type of CF. A pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest each consisted of a production measurement at a controlled-speech level. Results revealed that the extent to which the participants’ production accuracy benefited from the perception training depended on CF type. In addition, by adopting the perception accuracy data by Lee and Lyster (2016b), the current study found that improvement in perception accuracy was a significant predictor of improvement in production accuracy.


2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (10) ◽  
pp. 1046-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie E. Kuchinsky ◽  
Jayne B. Ahlstrom ◽  
Stephanie L. Cute ◽  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rvachew

This study examined the role of speech perception training in the correction of phonological errors. Twenty-seven preschoolers with phonological impairment who misarticulated /∫/ were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group 1 children listened to a variety of correctly and incorrectly produced versions of the word “shoe”; Group 2 children listened to the words “shoe” and “moo”; Group 3 children listened to the words “cat” and “Pete.” A computer game was used to provide reinforcement for correct identification of the words. All children received the same traditional sound production training program for correction of their /∫/ error, concurrently with speech perception training, during six weekly treatment sessions. On post-testing, Group 1 and 2 children demonstrated a superior ability to articulate the target sound in comparison to Group 3 children. The results are interpreted in relation to previous research on this topic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 1653-1666
Author(s):  
Michael I. Mandel ◽  
Vikas Grover ◽  
Mengxuan Zhao ◽  
Jiyoung Choi ◽  
Valerie L. Shafer

Purpose The “bubble noise” technique has recently been introduced as a method to identify the regions in time–frequency maps (i.e., spectrograms) of speech that are especially important for listeners in speech recognition. This technique identifies regions of “importance” that are specific to the speech stimulus and the listener, thus permitting these regions to be compared across different listener groups. For example, in cross-linguistic and second-language (L2) speech perception, this method identifies differences in regions of importance in accomplishing decisions of phoneme category membership. This research note describes the application of bubble noise to the study of language learning for 3 different language pairs: Hindi English bilinguals' perception of the /v/–/w/ contrast in American English, native English speakers' perception of the tense/lax contrast for Korean fricatives and affricates, and native English speakers' perception of Mandarin lexical tone. Conclusion We demonstrate that this technique provides insight on what information in the speech signal is important for native/first-language listeners compared to nonnative/L2 listeners. Furthermore, the method can be used to examine whether L2 speech perception training is effective in bringing the listener's attention to the important cues.


2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (04) ◽  
pp. 273-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Watson ◽  
Judy Dubno ◽  
Marjorie Leek ◽  
James Miller

1991 ◽  
Vol 100 (9) ◽  
pp. 700-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Gagné ◽  
Lorne S. Parnes ◽  
Rajaa Hassan ◽  
Margaret LaRocque ◽  
Silvia Vidas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document