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
Natural language and natural selection
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081061 · Cited by 1,330
Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code
Kuhl, P. K. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1533 · Cited by 2,291
“Non-human mammals — such as chinchillas and monkeys — also partition sounds where languages place phonetic boundarie”
BackgroundSelf-citationKuhl, P. K. (1991) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03212211 · Cited by 1,331
Self-citationFitch, W. T. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511817779 · Cited by 594
The Discovery of Spoken Language
Jusczyk, P. W. (2000) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2447.001.0001 · Cited by 997
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