Cited by 117Phonetics and Phonology ResearchCategorization, perception, and languageLinguistic Variation and Morphology

Influences of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners’ perception of /r/ and /l/

Iverson, Paul, Kuhl, Patricia K.·1996·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

Recent experiments have demonstrated that category goodness influences the perception of vowels [Iverson and Kuhl, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 553–562 (1995)]; listeners show a perceptual magnet effect characterized by shrunken perceptual distances near excellent exemplars of vowel categories and stretched distances near poor exemplars. The present study extends this investigation by examining the relative influence of phonetic identification and category goodness on the perception of American English /r/ and /l/. Eighteen /ra/ and /la/ tokens were synthesized by varying F2 and F3 frequencies. Adult listeners identified and rated the goodness of individual stimuli, and rated the similarity of stimulus pairs. Multidimensional scaling analyses revealed that the perceptual space was shrunk near the best exemplars of each category and stretched near the category boundary. In addition, individual differences in /r/ identification corresponded to the degree of shrinking near the best exemplars of the /r/ category. The results demonstrate that category goodness and phonetic identification both contribute to the perception of /r/ and /l/.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.415234

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Linguistic experience produces mental maps for speech that differ substantially for speakers of different languages.

    “The results suggest that linguistic experience produces mental maps for speech that differ substantially for speakers of different languages (40, 69, 79).”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [79]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
1996-02-01
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
1130-1140
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W2038622214
Cited by
116
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007391, HD 07391)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
phonetic identification, perceptual magnet effect, American English, vowel perception, category boundaries, individual differences
MeSH terms
Humans, Phonetics, Speech Acoustics, Speech Discrimination Tests, 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