The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Discrimination of speech by nonhuman animals: Basic auditory sensitivities conducive to the perception of speech-sound categories
Abstract
Chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger) were tested in a same–different task to determine the location of greatest sensitivity along a continuum of voice-onset-time (VOT). The procedure used was an up–down staircase technique which allowed the determination of the just-noticeable-difference in VOT (Δ VOT) for VOT’s on a continuum ranging from [dα] to [tα]. Results demonstrated that the animals were most sensitive to change (i.e., produced the smallest Δ VOT values) in the region of the phonetic boundary dividing voiceless-unaspirated and voiceless-aspirated sounds, in good agreement with the boundary value previously obtained in an identification task with this same species [Kuhl and Miller, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 63, 905 (1978)]. The results support the notion that the mammalian auditory system provided a selective pressure on the choice of acoustic cues to represent the phonetic oppositions employed by the world’s languages. The data are discussed in terms of the original definition of categorical perception and current psychoacoustic explanations of the peak in sensitivity for two-component stimuli varying in onset time.
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
“In tests of discrimination, monkeys showed peaks in sensitivity that coincided with the phonetic boundaries used by languages (20–22) (Fig. 4).”
From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“This difference is of interest in light of previous research demonstrating many commonalities between young infants and animals in tests of speech perception, particularly those involving categorical perception (Kuhl, 1981;Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978;Kuhl & Padden, 1982, 1983;Morse & Snowdon, 1975;Waters & Wilson, 1976).”
From Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not (1991) · cites this paper as Kuhl, 1981
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The motor theory of speech perception revised
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6 · Cited by 2,970
“By its terms, the very processes of phonetic classification depend directly on properties of the auditory system, properties so independent of language as to be found, perhaps, in all mammals (Kuhl, 1981; Miller, 1977; Stevens, 1975).”
BackgroundNatural language and natural selection
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081061 · Cited by 1,330
Kuhl, P. K. (1991) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03212211 · Cited by 1,331
Self-citationThe Discovery of Spoken Language
Jusczyk, P. W. (2000) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2447.001.0001 · Cited by 997
A new view of language acquisition
Kuhl, P. K. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.22.11850 · Cited by 773
Self-citationA Specialization for Speech Perception
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2643163 · Cited by 531
Repp, B. H. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.81 · Cited by 434
Categorical Perception: Issues, Methods, Findings
Repp, B. H. (1984) · Speech and language: advances in basic research and practice · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-608610-2.50012-1 · Cited by 429
Computational Maps In The Brain
Knudsen, E. I., du Lac, S., & Esterly, S. D. (1987) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.10.030187.000353 · Cited by 390
On the Objects of Speech Perception
Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1989) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0102_2 · Cited by 352
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142028 · Cited by 373
Xu, Y., Gandour, J. T., & Francis, A. L. (2006) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.2213572 · Cited by 287
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Morgan, J. L. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0017196 · Cited by 280
“…to general patterns of auditory sensitivity, as nonhuman animals show discrimination peaks at category boundaries along the dimensions of voicing (Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl & Padden, 1982) and place (Kuhl & Padden, 1983; Morse & Snowdon, 1975), and humans show similar boundaries in some nonspeech stimuli…”
Enhanced discriminability at the phonetic boundaries for the place feature in macaques
Kuhl, P. K., & Padden, D. M. (1983) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.389148 · Cited by 231
Self-citationCategorical perception of sound frequency by crickets
Wyttenbach, R. A., May, M. L., & Hoy, R. R. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.273.5281.1542 · Cited by 226
NEUROBIOLOGY OF SPEECH PERCEPTION
FITCH, R. H., Miller, S., & Tallal, P. A. (1997) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.20.1.331 · Cited by 199
“…evidence for the unique nature of human speech processing was severely challenged in 1975, when Kuhl and Miller demonstrated that a nonhuman species (the chinchilla) showed categorical perception of human speech sounds [consonantvowel (CV) syllables] (Kuhl 1981, 1987; Kuhl & Miller 1975, 1978).”
BackgroundColin, C. (2002) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00024-x · Cited by 180
“Auditory theories assume that general auditory processes are sufficient to explain the perception of speech (Pisoni, 1973; Cole and Scott, 1974; Kuhl, 1981; Massaro, 1987; Stevens, 1989).”
BackgroundEnhanced discriminability at the phonetic boundaries for the voicing feature in macaques
Kuhl, P. K., & Padden, D. M. (1982) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03204208 · Cited by 171
Self-citationPetersen, M. R., Beecher, M. D., Zoloth, S. R., GREEN, S. M., Marler, P., Moody, D. B., & Stebbins, W. C. (1984) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.98.5.779 · Cited by 163
Chodroff, E., & Wilson, C. J. N. (2017) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2017.01.001 · Cited by 151
“This presumably reflects both a relatively fixed auditory boundary between the voicing categories (e.g., Kuhl, 1981) and, in our study, the lower bound on positive VOT measurements.”
BackgroundBent, T., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.97 · Cited by 137
“This outcome would be in line with proposals for shared speech and nonspeech processing and representation mechanisms (e.g., Kewley-Port, Watson, & Foyle, 1988; Kluender, Diehl, & Killeen, 1987; Kuhl, 1981).”
ResultSome differences between phonetic and auditory modes of perception
Mann, V. A. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90030-6 · Cited by 134
“…cue and percept has several characteristics that have been taken to imply a special mode of processing (for recent: reviews, see: Liberman, 1982; Liberman and Studdert-Kennedy, 1978; Repp, 1982; Studdert-Kerunedy, 1980); but see, for example: Kuhl, 1981, Kuhl and Miller, 1975; Miller, 1977.”
BackgroundSpeech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition: Past and Present
Jusczyk, P. W., & Luce, P. A. (2002) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/00003446-200202000-00002 · Cited by 132
“Such findings, combined with others suggesting that nonhuman mammalian species, such as chinchillas (Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl & Miller 1975; 1978) and monkeys (Kuhl and Padden, 1982; 1983) appeared to show categorical perception, undermined the view that categorical perception is unique to speech…”
BackgroundCategorical perception occurs in newly learned faces, other-race faces, and inverted faces
Levin, D. T., & Beale, J. M. (2000) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03205558 · Cited by 125
Categorical perception of mouse-pup ultrasounds in the temporal domain
Ehret, G. (1992) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80101-0 · Cited by 124
“…27 ms; Pisoni & Lazarus 1974; Kuhl & Miller 1978), chinchillas (23 ms; Kuhl & Miller 1978) and rhesus monkeys (31 ms; Waters & Wilson 1976), which is also the case for the/da/-/ta/continuum (budgerigars: 35 ms; Dooling 1989; humans 35 ms, chinchillas 33 ms; Kuhl & Miller 1975, 1978; Kuhl 1981).”
BackgroundHuman Language and Our Reptilian Brain
LIEBERMAN, P. H. (2002) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv201xjgd · Cited by 122
The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language
Baker, S. A., Idsardi, W. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193083 · Cited by 117
Effects of categorization and discrimination training on auditory perceptual space
Guenther, F. H., Husain, F. T., Cohen, M. A., & Shinn‐Cunningham, B. G. (1999) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.428112 · Cited by 115
Automatic Phoneme Category Selectivity in the Dorsal Auditory Stream
Chevillet, M. A., Jiang, X., Rauschecker, J. P., & Riesenhuber, M. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1870-12.2013 · Cited by 107
“Discrimination was tested at 10% intervals along each morph line, and the morph distance between paired sounds was varied according to the adaptive staircase algorithm QUEST (Watson and Pelli, 1983) in each direction of the morph line, similar to the experiments by Kuhl (1981).”
MethodToni, I., de Lange, F. P., Noordzij, M. L., & Peter Hagoort, A. (2008) · Journal of Physiology-Paris · doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.005 · Cited by 111
“…showing perceptual skills that were considered to be uniquely human (e.g., categorical perception), or for which a speech production apparatus is claimed to be required by the proponents of the motor theory of speech perception (e.g., Kluender et al., 1987; Kuhl and Miller, 1975, 1978; Kuhl, 1981.”
BackgroundAllen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (1999) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.427949 · Cited by 103
Role of experience for language-specific functional mappings of vowel sounds
Kluender, K. R., Lotto, A. J., Holt, L. L., & Bloedel, S. L. (1998) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.423939 · Cited by 106
Repp, B. H. (1983) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/0167-6393(83)90050-x · Cited by 100
Trading relations in speech and nonspeech
Parker, E. M., Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1986) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211495 · Cited by 96
“Perhaps the most damaging evidence against the speech mode hypothesis comes from studies of speech perception in the chinchilla (Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978).”
BackgroundCategorical perception in American Sign Language
Emmorey, K. D., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960143000416 · Cited by 96
“Although CP effects for speech were originally taken as evidence for mechanisms specially evolved for speech perception, further research revealed CP effects for speech stimuli in non-human animals (e.g., Kuhl, 1981 ), for non-speech auditory stimuli (e.g., Burns & Ward, 1978), and for some visual stimuli as well (see…”
BackgroundSteinschneider, M., Fishman, Y. I., & Arezzo, J. C. (2003) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1582449 · Cited by 93
Orderly cortical representation of vowels based on formant interaction
Ohl, F. W., & Scheich, H. (1997) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.94.17.9440 · Cited by 88
Language, Mind and Brain: Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004) · Cited by 89
Finding phonological features in perception
Chládková, K. (2014) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 88
Mismatch negativity (MMN) elicited by changes in phoneme length: A cross-linguistic study
Ylinen, S., Шестакова, А. Н., Huotilainen, M., Alku, P., & Näätänen, R. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.004 · Cited by 90
The Reading Researcher and the Reading Teacher Need the Right Theory of Speech
Liberman, A. M. (1999) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_1 · Cited by 84
Comparative bioacoustics: a roadmap for quantifying and comparing animal sounds across diverse taxa
Odom, K. J., Araya‐Salas, M., Morano, J. L., Ligon, R. A., Leighton, G. M., Taff, C. C., Dalziell, A. H., Billings, A. C., Germain, R. R., Pardo, M., et al. (2021) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12695 · Cited by 81
“Such models could also take ‘just noticeable differences’ in animal sound perception into account to reflect accurately the scale or components of a signal that taxa are capable of perceiving (Kuhl, 1981).”
BackgroundSzagun, G. (2001) · Audiology and Neurotology · doi:10.1159/000046134 · Cited by 76
“While quite a number of nonhuman species display speech-processing abilities [Kuhl, 1981], only humans develop a full grammar.”
BackgroundSpeech evoked activity in the auditory radiations and cortex of the awake monkey
Steinschneider, M., Arezzo, J. C., & Vaughan, H. G. (1982) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)90403-6 · Cited by 74
Categorical Perception of Race
Levin, D. T., & Angelone, B. L. (2002) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p3315 · Cited by 79
“Infrahuman animals show CP effects with phoneme categories similar to those shown by humans (Kuhl 1981; Kuhl and Padden 1982), and CP has also been observed for continua between musical intervals or the first two notes of familiar tunes (Burns and Ward 1978; Smith et al 1994).”
Effects of Backward Speech and Speaker Variability in Language Discrimination by Rats.
Toro, J. M., Trobalón, J. B., & Sebastián‐Gallés, N. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.1.95 · Cited by 71
“Phoneme discrimination has been demonstrated in macaques (Kuhl, 1981), budgerians (Dooling, Best, & Brown, 1995), chinchillas (Burdick & Miller, 1975), pigeons (Hienz, Sachs, & Sinnott, 1981), gerbils (Sinnott & Mosteller, 2001), and rats (Reed, Howell, Sackin, Pizzimenti, & Rosen, 2003), to cite a…”
New Insights Into Old Puzzles From Infants' Categorical Discrimination of Soundless Phonetic Units
Baker, S. A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. (2006) · Language Learning and Development · doi:10.1207/s15473341lld0203_1 · Cited by 71
“The claim has been weakened by research showing that certain nonhumans also exhibit categorical discrimination (CD) for human speech sounds (Kluender, Diehl, & Killeen, 1987; Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978; Kuhl & Padden, 1982, 1983; Morse & Snowdon, 1975; Waters & Wilson, 1976) and by research demonstrating CD…”
BackgroundCategorical perception of a natural, multivariate signal: Mating call recognition in túngara frogs
Baugh, A. T., Akre, K. L., & Ryan, M. J. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0802201105 · Cited by 68
“Other animals exhibit categorical perception of human phonemes (5, 6).”
BackgroundLIEBERMAN, P. H. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0008119x · Cited by 67
Perceptuomotor compatibility effects in speech
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Goldstein, L. M. (2009) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/app.71.5.1138 · Cited by 68
“Of course, other theories of speech perception (Diehl & Kluender, 1989; Fowler, 1986; Kuhl, 1981; Massaro & Oden, 1980) might explain findings that the motor system is active during perception by postulating some form of linkage between perceptual and motoric representations of speech.”
BackgroundCategorical Perception of Speech by Children With Specific Language Impairments
Coady, J. A., Kluender, K. R., & Evans, J. L. (2005) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/065 · Cited by 63
What good is five percent of a language competence?
Catania, A. C. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081097 · Cited by 63
Zebra finches exhibit speaker-independent phonetic perception of human speech
Ohms, V. R., Gill, A., van Heijningen, C. A. A., Beckers, G. J. L., & ten Cate, C. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1788 · Cited by 61
Studdert‐Kennedy, M. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081322 · Cited by 60
Ylinen, S., Шестакова, А. Н., Alku, P., & Huotilainen, M. (2005) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/00238309050480030401 · Cited by 56
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., & de Boer, B. (2001) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03478.x · Cited by 57
Self-citationChapter 9 The Relation of Speech to Reading and Writing
Liberman, A. M. (1992) · Advances in psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62794-6 · Cited by 54
How much did the brain have to change for speech?
Lewontin, R. C. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081188 · Cited by 52
Natural Boundaries in Gap Detection are Related to Categorical Perception of Stop Consonants
Elangovan, S., & Stuart, A. (2008) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318185ddd2 · Cited by 51
“…has been observed in preverbal babies (Eimas, et al., 1987; Jusczyk, et al., 1989) and even within a number of animal species including chinchillas (Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978), Macaque monkeys (Kuhl & Padden, 1982, 1983), budgerigars, zebra 1Department of Communicative Disorders, East…”
BackgroundCoady, J. A., Evans, J. L., Mainela‐Arnold, E., & Kluender, K. R. (2007) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/004 · Cited by 51
Auditory perception and the evolution of speech
Kuhl, P. K. (1988) · Human Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02436589 · Cited by 49
Self-citationHearing and Auditory-Visual Intermodal Recognition in the Chimpanzee
Hashiya, K., & Kojima, S. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-09423-4_8 · Cited by 50
Seeking the neurobiological bases of speech perception
Miller, J. L., & Jusczyk, P. W. (1989) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90007-3 · Cited by 49
Michel, G. F. (2021) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym13060992 · Cited by 51
Speech perception by budgerigars(Melopsittacus undulatus): The voiced-voiceless distinction
Dooling, R. J., Okanoya, K., & Brown, S. (1989) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03208075 · Cited by 47
Simos, P. G., Molfese, D. L., & Brenden, R. (1997) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1836 · Cited by 44
“A later study ( Kuhl, 1981 ) demonstrated that the perceptual boundaries found in chinchilla ‘‘labeling’’ tasks corresponded to locations of enhanced psychoacoustic sensitivity—the second prerequisite for categorical perception (Studdert-Kennedy, Liberman, Harris, & Cooper, 1970).”
BackgroundWeinberger, N. M., & McKenna, T. M. (1988) · Music Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · doi:10.2307/40285407 · Cited by 44
“For example, Kuhl (1978, 1981) has argued that mechanisms for processing complex acoustic stimulation in animals have been conserved and place constraints on the selection of phonetic contrasts used in human language, even though they obviously do not serve such functions in nonhumans.”
BackgroundDo Infants Really Learn Phonetic Categories?
Feldman, N. H., Goldwater, S. J., Emmanuel Dupoux, A., & Schatz, T. (2021) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00046 · Cited by 41
“Moreover, the discrimination peak is also present in nonhuman animals (Kuhl, 1981; Kuhl &Miller, 1975; Kuhl & Padden, 1982), suggesting that it arises from an auditory discontinuity.”
BackgroundChallenging the notion of innate phonetic boundaries
Nittrouer, S. (2001) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1379078 · Cited by 45
Kriengwatana, B. P., Escudero, P., & ten Cate, C. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01543 · Cited by 38
“…studies have shown remarkable similarities, but also differences, in perception, discrimination, and sensitivity to acoustic properties of speech in humans and animals (reviewed by Kuhl, 1981; Lotto et al., 1997b; Kluender et al., 2005; Beckers, 2011; Carbonell and Lotto, 2014; ten Cate, 2014).”
BackgroundMorse, P. A., Molfese, D. L., Laughlin, N. K., Linnville, S. E., & Wetzel, F. (1987) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/0093-934x(87)90028-9 · Cited by 33
Representation of CV-sounds in cat primary auditory cortex: intensity dependence
Wong, S. W., & Schreiner, C. E. (2003) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/s0167-6393(02)00096-1 · Cited by 32
Savela, J., Kujala, T., Tuomainen, J., Ek, M., Aaltonen, O., & Näätänen, R. (2003) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00280-x · Cited by 32
Dent, M. L., Screven, L. A., & Kobrina, A. (2018) · Springer handbook of auditory research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92495-3_4 · Cited by 29
Perception of the American English liquid /ra–la/ contrast by humans and monkeys
Sinnott, J. M., & Brown, C. H. (1997) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.419732 · Cited by 31
Bates, E. A., & MacWhinney, B. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081073 · Cited by 29
The effects of distributional learning on rats' sensitivity to phonetic information.
Pons, F. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.32.1.97 · Cited by 28
Simos, P. G., & Molfese, D. L. (1997) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(96)00074-7 · Cited by 27
Phonetic training for learners of Arabic
Burnham, K. R. (2013) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) · Cited by 29
Iconicity, analogy, and universal grammar
Itkonen, E. (1994) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)90055-8 · Cited by 26
When Theories of Speech Meet the Real World
Liberman, A. M. (1998) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1023/a:1023289713883 · Cited by 26
“Moving from the top of the language hierarchy downward, the more conventional theories hold that the specialization stops short of the primary acts and percepts of speech, taking those to be no part of language but only its conveniently available vehicles (Crowder, 1983; Diehl & Kluender, 1989; Fujisaki & Kawashima, 1…”
BackgroundPesetsky, D., & Block, N. J. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081279 · Cited by 25
Neurodevelopmental Preparedness for Language in the Neonatal Brain
Nallet, C., & Gervain, J. (2021) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-050620-025732 · Cited by 27
“As with the case of rhythm, animals can also discriminate phonemes categorically, at similar acoustic boundaries as humans do (Kuhl 1981, 1986), suggesting that phoneme perception is a basic ability rooted in general mammalian auditory mechanisms.”
Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1989) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0102_6 · Cited by 23
Categorical perception of newly learned faces
Viviani, P., Binda, P., & Borsato, T. (2006) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506280600761134 · Cited by 23
“In the case of language, later evidence (Kuhl, 1981; Sawusch & Gagnon, 1995) proved damaging to the hypothesis of an innate connection between CP and the phonetic system of natural languages.”
BackgroundThe evolution of the language faculty: A paradox and its solution
Sperber, D. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081310 · Cited by 23
Vocal-auditory functions of the chimpanzee: consonant perception
Kojima, S., Tatsumi, I. F., Kiritani, S., & Hirose, H. (1989) · Human Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02436436 · Cited by 23
ABX-Discriminability Measures and Applications
Schatz, T. (2016) · theses.fr (ABES) · Cited by 23
Bennur, S., Tsunada, J., Cohen, Y. E., & Liu, R. C. (2013) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2013.08.008 · Cited by 21
“The assumption has been that basic auditorymechanisms shared across species contribute to this ability (Kuhl, 1981).”
BackgroundEnsemble responses of the auditory nerve to normal and whispered stop consonants
Stevens, H. E., & Wickesberg, R. E. (1999) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/s0378-5955(99)00014-3 · Cited by 19
Coding of Communication Sounds in the Inferior Colliculus
Portfors, C. V., & Sinex, D. G. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-27083-3_14 · Cited by 20
Rythme des langues et acquisition du langage
Ramus, F. (1999) · HAL · Cited by 21
Neural Response Selectivity to Natural Sounds in the Bat Midbrain
Salles, A., Park, S., Sundar, H., Macías, S., Elhilali, M., & Moss, C. F. (2020) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.11.047 · Cited by 18
“…et al., 2008; Schneider and ed in Helekar (2013); Comins and Woolley, 2010; review Genter, 2014); it has been shown that small acoustic differences in temporal features can translate to large perceptual differences (Pisoni, 1977; Kuhl and Miller, 1978; Burns and Ward, 1978; Kuhl 1981; Kuhl, 1983).”
BackgroundElectrophysiological correlates of categorical speech perception for voicing contrasts in dogs
Adams, C. L., Molfese, D. L., & Betz, J. C. (1987) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565648709540375 · Cited by 20
Discrimination of Musical Stimuli by Rats ( Rattus norvegicus )
Poli, M., & Previde, E. P. (2012) · International Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.46867/c42p4j · Cited by 19
Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals, and Robots
Moore, R. K., Marxer, R., & Thill, S. (2016) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00061 · Cited by 24
“Also Kuhl (1981) conducted listening tests on chinchillas in order to determine their capacity for discriminating speech and to provide support for the existence of a relation between the mammalian auditory system and the evolution of diferent languages.”
BackgroundLimits on phonetic integration in duplex perception
Whalen, D. H., & Liberman, A. M. (1996) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03205488 · Cited by 18
Impacts of acoustic‐phonetic variability on perceptual development for spoken language: A review
Quam, C., & Creel, S. C. (2021) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1558 · Cited by 24
Ghosh, P., Goldstein, L. M., & Narayanan, S. S. (2011) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.3573987 · Cited by 16
Synthesis and modification of the whistles of the bottlenose dolphin,Tursiops truncatus
Buck, J. R., Morgenbesser, H. B., & Tyack, P. L. (2000) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.429474 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhl, P. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhl, Patricia K.
- ORCID
- Kuhl, Patricia K.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1981-08-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 340-349
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2031282998
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- 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, voice onset time, just noticeable difference, phonetic boundaries, auditory sensitivity, categorical perception, acoustic cues, mammalian auditory system, psychoacoustics
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
