Cited by 17Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeuroscience and Music PerceptionCategorization, perception, and language

Perception of acoustic cues to Tokyo Japanese pitch-accent contrasts in native Japanese and naive English listeners

Shport, Irina A.·2015·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

This study examines how native language shapes the perception of a prosodic contrast. In Tokyo Japanese, a high-low pitch accent is a lexical property of a word, and the F0 fall after the peak associated with the accented syllable is the fundamental cue to accent perception. In English, pitch accents do not create lexically contrastive F0 patterns. A hypothesis that English listeners naive to Japanese use the F0 fall cue less than Japanese listeners was tested in two experiments. The alignment of F0 peak, the presence and magnitude of F0 fall were manipulated in a trisyllabic nonword to resynthesize Japanese 1st-syllable accented, 2nd-syllable accented, and unaccented patterns. In an AX-discrimination experiment, both listener groups showed sensitivity to the presence of F0 fall at every peak location. In a categorization experiment, the English group did not use the F0 fall cue in decisions about whether the 1st or the 2nd syllable sounded more prominent. The Japanese group relied on the F0 fall information, some listeners much heavily than others. These findings suggest that one's native language constrains how much attention the prosodic dimension of F0 change receives and that individual listeners may have qualitatively different perceptual strategies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.4922468

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Shport, I. A.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Shport, Irina A.
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
138
Issue
1
Pages
307-318
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W1136744387
Cited by
17
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
pitch accent, Tokyo Japanese, English listeners, native language effects, fundamental frequency, prosodic contrasts, syllable prominence, perceptual strategies
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cues, Female, Humans, Japan, Language, Male, Phonation, Phonetics, Pitch Discrimination, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception, United States, Multilingualism, Asian People, Young Adult

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