CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 913Phonetics and Phonology ResearchEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningCategorization, perception, and language

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report

Open access
Logan, John S., Lively, Scott E., Pisoni, David B.·1991·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.1894649PMC PMC3518834
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Native speakers of Japanese learning English generally have difficulty differentiating the phonemes /r/ and /l/, even after years of experience with English. Previous research that attempted to train Japanese listeners to distinguish this contrast using synthetic stimuli reported little success, especially when transfer to natural tokens containing /r/ and /l/ was tested. In the present study, a different training procedure that emphasized variability among stimulus tokens was used. Japanese subjects were trained in a minimal pair identification paradigm using multiple natural exemplars contrasting /r/ and /l/ from a variety of phonetic environments as stimuli. A pretest-posttest design containing natural tokens was used to assess the effects of training. Results from six subjects showed that the new procedure was more robust than earlier training techniques. Small but reliable differences in performance were obtained between pretest and posttest scores. The results demonstrate the importance of stimulus variability and task-related factors in training nonnative speakers to perceive novel phonetic contrasts that are not distinctive in their native language.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.1894649

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Abramson A, Lisker L. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; Academia, Prague. 1970. pp. 569–573. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aslin R, Pisoni D. Some developmental processes in speech perception. In: Yeni-Komshian G, Kavanagh J, Ferguson C, editors. Child Phonology Perception and Production. Academic; New York: 1980. pp. 67–96. [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson R. Ingredients for a theory of instruction. Am Psychol. 1972;27:921–931. [Google Scholar]
  4. Flege J. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In: Winitz H, editor. Human Communication and Its Disorders, A Review. Ablex; Norwood, NJ: 1988. pp. 224–401. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gillette S. Minn Papers Ling Philos Lang. Vol. 6. University of Minnesota; Minneapolis: 1980. Contextual variation in the perception of L and R by Japanese and Korean speakers; pp. 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jusczyk P. Developing phonological categories from the speech signal. Paper presented at International Conference on Phonological Development; Stanford University. 1989. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kuhl P. Perception of auditory equivalence classes for speech in early infancy. Inf Behav Dev. 1983;6:263–285. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lehiste I. Acoustic characteristics of selected English consonants. Int J Am Ling. 1964;30:10–115. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lively S, Logan J, Pisoni D. Res Speech Percept, Prog Rep No 16. Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University; Bloomington: 1990. An acoustic analyses of /r/ and /l/ across phonetic environments and talkers. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lively S, Pisoni D, Logan J. Some effects of training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/ In: Tohkura Yohichi., editor. Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic structure. OHM; Tokyo: 1991. (to be published) [Google Scholar]
  11. Mochizuki M. The identification of /r/ and /l/ in natural and synthesized speech. J Phon. 1981;9:283–303. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pisoni D, Logan J, Lively S. Perceptual learning of nonnative speech contrasts: Implications for theories of speech perception. In: Nusbaum H, Goodman J, editors. Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Recognizing Speech Sounds to Spoken Words. MIT; Cambridge. MA: 1991. (to be published) [Google Scholar]
  13. Samuel A. The effect of discrimination training on speech perception: Noncategorical perception. Percept Psychophys. 1977;22:321–330. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shiffrin R. Attention. In: Atkinson R, Herrnstein R, Lindzey G, Luce R, editors. Steven’s Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 2. Vol. 2. Wiley; New York: 1988. pp. 739–811. Learning and Cognition. [Google Scholar]
  15. Strange W. Speech input and the development of speech perception. In: Kavanagh J, editor. Otitis Media and Child Development. York; Parkton, MD: 1986. pp. 12–26. [Google Scholar]
  16. Terbeek D. UCLA Work Pap Phon. Vol. 37. UCLA; Los Angeles: 1977. A. cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. [Google Scholar]
  17. Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary. Library Reproduction Service; Los Angeles: 1967. [Google Scholar]
  18. Werker J. Becoming a native listener. Am Sci. 1989;77:54–59. [Google Scholar]
  19. Werker J. The ontogeny of speech perception. In: Mattingly I, Studdert-Kennedy M, editors. Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1990. (in press) [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–912 of 912

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
ORCID
Pisoni, David B.
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
1991-02-01
Volume
89
Issue
2
Pages
874-886
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.1894649
PMC
PMC3518834
OpenAlex
W2037249514
Cited by
913
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 40
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dc000111-38)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01 DC-000111, DC-00111-13, F32DC000111, K08DC000111)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
Japanese listeners, stimulus variability, non-native speech perception, English as a second language
MeSH terms
Adult, Asian, Attention, Generalization, Stimulus, Humans, Indiana, Japan, Language, Phonetics, Speech Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review