Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Revisiting the left ear advantage for phonetic cues to talker identification
View through CrossRef
Previous research suggests that learning to use a phonetic property [e.g., voice-onset-time, (VOT)] for talker identity supports a left ear processing advantage. Specifically, listeners trained to identify two “talkers” who only differed in characteristic VOTs showed faster talker identification for stimuli presented to the left ear compared to that presented to the right ear, which is interpreted as evidence of hemispheric lateralization consistent with task demands. Experiment 1 (n = 97) aimed to replicate this finding and identify predictors of performance; experiment 2 (n = 79) aimed to replicate this finding under conditions that better facilitate observation of laterality effects. Listeners completed a talker identification task during pretest, training, and posttest phases. Inhibition, category identification, and auditory acuity were also assessed in experiment 1. Listeners learned to use VOT for talker identity, which was positively associated with auditory acuity. Talker identification was not influenced by ear of presentation, and Bayes factors indicated strong support for the null. These results suggest that talker-specific phonetic variation is not sufficient to induce a left ear advantage for talker identification; together with the extant literature, this instead suggests that hemispheric lateralization for talker-specific phonetic variation requires phonetic variation to be conditioned on talker differences in source characteristics.
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Title: Revisiting the left ear advantage for phonetic cues to talker identification
Description:
Previous research suggests that learning to use a phonetic property [e.
g.
, voice-onset-time, (VOT)] for talker identity supports a left ear processing advantage.
Specifically, listeners trained to identify two “talkers” who only differed in characteristic VOTs showed faster talker identification for stimuli presented to the left ear compared to that presented to the right ear, which is interpreted as evidence of hemispheric lateralization consistent with task demands.
Experiment 1 (n = 97) aimed to replicate this finding and identify predictors of performance; experiment 2 (n = 79) aimed to replicate this finding under conditions that better facilitate observation of laterality effects.
Listeners completed a talker identification task during pretest, training, and posttest phases.
Inhibition, category identification, and auditory acuity were also assessed in experiment 1.
Listeners learned to use VOT for talker identity, which was positively associated with auditory acuity.
Talker identification was not influenced by ear of presentation, and Bayes factors indicated strong support for the null.
These results suggest that talker-specific phonetic variation is not sufficient to induce a left ear advantage for talker identification; together with the extant literature, this instead suggests that hemispheric lateralization for talker-specific phonetic variation requires phonetic variation to be conditioned on talker differences in source characteristics.
Related Results
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Abstarct
Introduction
Isolated brain hydatid disease (BHD) is an extremely rare form of echinococcosis. A prompt and timely diagnosis is a crucial step in disease management. This ...
Xie, Liu, & Jaeger (2020). Cross-talker generalization during foreign-accented speech perception
Xie, Liu, & Jaeger (2020). Cross-talker generalization during foreign-accented speech perception
Speech perception depends on the ability to generalize previously experienced input effectively across talkers. How such cross-talker generalization is achieved has remained an ope...
Recognizing voices through a cochlear implant: A systematic review
Recognizing voices through a cochlear implant: A systematic review
Objective: Some cochlear implant (CI) users report having difficulty accessing indexical information in the speech signal, presumably due to the transformation from acoustic to ele...
Effects of Spatial Speech Presentation on Listener Response Strategy for Talker-Identification
Effects of Spatial Speech Presentation on Listener Response Strategy for Talker-Identification
This study investigates effects of spatial auditory cues on human listeners' response strategy for identifying two alternately active talkers (“turn-taking” listening scenario). Pr...
Pshal P’shaw
Pshal P’shaw
Pshal P’shaw investigates the sonic instability of speech—where phonetic dissonance, vocal fragmentation, and gestural sound challenge structured linguistic norms. Developed during...
Prevention and Control Strategy
Prevention and Control Strategy
Ear diseases are considered as one of the common disorders in small animal
practice and the number one cause for veterinary visits among dog owners. Commonly
reported clinical sign...
Effects of talker uncertainty I: Auditory word recognition
Effects of talker uncertainty I: Auditory word recognition
The production and resulting acoustic composition of spoken words vary as functions of individual talker characteristics. However, the effects of talker differences on auditory wor...
Talker variability facilitates the statistical learning of speech sounds
Talker variability facilitates the statistical learning of speech sounds
Natural speech contains many sources of acoustic variability both within and between talkers, which challenges speech recognition in some contexts but may facilitate language under...

