Cited by 1Phonetics and Phonology ResearchLinguistic Variation and MorphologyLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition

Segmental Influences on the Perception of High Pitch Accent Scaling in American English

Barnes, Jonathan, Brugos, Alejna, Veilleux, Nanette, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie·2025·Language and Speech

Abstract

Researchers investigating a broad array of questions in spoken language prosody routinely base their arguments on measurements taken from the F0 contours of representative speech samples. These analyses, however, frequently involve abstracting F0 contours away from the segmental strings that bear them, potentially overlooking in the process the role played by segmental qualities such as sonority or periodicity in the realization of F0 patterns by speakers and their interpretation by listeners. This paper reports the results of two experiments investigating how perception of F0 contours is affected by the segmental string over which those contours are realized. The first focuses on gaps in F0 contours created by voiceless obstruents such as stops and fricatives, while the second investigates F0 intervals spanning lower-sonority voiced segments, such as nasals and voiced fricatives. While these two scenarios might at first seem unrelated, we argue that listeners treat both with a single mechanism in perception, namely, by reducing (potentially to zero) the amount of weight accorded to those portions of the contour for determination of the speaker’s intended F0 scaling level. We present an account of both effects within a unified model of F0 scaling perception called TCoG-F, with discussion of its implications for phonetic and phonological intonation research going forward.

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 · 10.1177/00238309241255319

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 1

Authors
Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Veilleux, N., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Simmons University (US)
  • Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Corresponding author
Barnes, Jonathan
Venue
Language and Speech
Published
2024-08-07
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
278-312
ISSN
  • 0023-8309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-6053
OpenAlex
W4401434463
Cited by
1
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Language and Speech (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (BCS-1023853)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Keywords
pitch accent, intonation perception, sonority, periodicity, voiceless obstruents, nasals, voiced fricatives, American English, prosody
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Phonetics, Pitch Perception, Sound Spectrography, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception, Voice Quality, 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