The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli
Abstract
In an attempt to clearly differentiate perceptual effects that are attributable to ’’auditory’’ and ’’phonetic’’ levels of processing in speech perception we have undertaken a series of experiments with animal listeners. Four chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger) were trained to respond differently to the ’’endpoints’’ of a synthetic alveolar speech continuum (0 ms VOT and +80 ms VOT) and were then tested in a generalization paradigm with the VOT stimuli between these endpoints. The resulting identification functions were nearly identical to those obtained with adult English-speaking listeners. To test the generality of this agreement, the animals were then tested with synthetic stimuli that had labial and velar places of articulation. As a whole, the functions produced by the two species were very similar; the same relative locations of the phonetic boundaries, with lowest VOT boundaries for labial stimuli and highest for velar stimuli, were obtained for each animal and human subject. No significant differences between species on the absolute values of the phonetic boundaries were obtained, but chinchillas produced identification functions that were slightly, but significantly, less steep. These results are discussed with regard to theories of speech perception, the evolution of a speech-sound repertoire, and current interpretations of the human infant’s perceptual proclivities with regard to speech-sound perception.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Animals also exhibited categorical perception; they demonstrated perceptual “boundaries” at locations where humans perceive a shift from one phonetic category to another (18, 19) (Fig. 3).”
From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [19]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–431 of 431
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.010
Acoustic Properties of Vowels and Consonants
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.009
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.013
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.007
Subcortical Processing of Speech Sounds
Chandrasekaran, B., Tessmer, R., & Gnanateja, G. N. (2022) · Springer handbook of auditory research · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81542-4_2
(1982) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-025957-4.50014-0
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.014
(1981) · Advances in psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)60222-8
A Narrative Review of Auditory Categorisation and Its Potential Role in Tinnitus Perception
Vajsakovic, D., Maslin, M. R. D., & Searchfield, G. D. (2022) · Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Hearing and Balance Medicine · doi:10.3390/ohbm3030006
“Kuhl and Miller (1978) [29] conducted voicing distinction experiments using chinchillas, testing the animals in a categorisation paradigm in which they were trained to respond differently to the endpoints of a synthetic speech continuum (0 ms voice-onset time and +80 ms voice-onset time).”
MethodInternal structure of intonational categories: The (dis)appearance of a perceptual magnet effect
Rodd, J., & Chen, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911349
Sung, Y., & Mitsudo, H. (2023) · Nippon Onkyo Gakkaishi/Acoustical science and technology/Nihon Onkyo Gakkaishi · doi:10.1250/ast.44.66
Munro, M. J. (2020) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394259786.oth2
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.index
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.ack
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.toc
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.01ch1
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.prelim
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.refs
4. Nasals and nasalization in Spanish and Portuguese
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.04ch4
(2016) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.9.06ch6
Kingston, J. K. C. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95504-1.00214-3
Rodent Models in Studying Speech Perception
Williams, B. M., Myers, I. K., & Engineer, C. T. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95504-1.00586-x
L'étude comparative de la perception de la parole : nouveaux développements 1
Ramus, F. (2006) · Rééducation orthophonique
Categories in phonetics and phonology
Lidz, J. L., & Knowlton, T. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780191991349.003.0007
ABX-discriminability measures and applications
Schatz, T. (2016) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/154e51eczd391z476azbc0fz763e7f763682 · Cited by 30
Influence de la surdité neurosensorielle sur la perception de la hauteur tonale
Colin, D. (2016) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/7031946ez9858z4a94z85efz83e8942bc318
Étude de la symétrie et de la sémantique combinatoire chez le babouin de Guinée (Papio papio)
Médam, T. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/63a6d07dz843fz4033z945fz6449df44fe1a
Zeng, M. (2026) · Journal of Japanese Linguistics · doi:10.1515/jjl-2026-2004
Wong, C., & Pont, M. J. (1998) · Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6492-1_21
Blevins, J. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511486357.008
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhl, P. K., & Miller, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Central Institute for the Deaf (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1978-03-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 905-917
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2026219038
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 9.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Keywords
- speech perception, chinchilla, Chinchilla lanigera, voice onset time, identification function, phonetic boundaries, cross-species comparison, infant speech perception
- MeSH terms
- Acoustics, Adult, Animals, Auditory Perception, Chinchilla, Biological Evolution, Humans, Infant, Phonetics, Species Specificity, Speech, Time Factors, Voice
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
