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-citation
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
