Abstract

The existence of a functional relationship between speech perception and production systems is now widely accepted, but the exact nature and role of this relationship remains quite unclear. The existence of idiosyncrasies in production and in perception sheds interesting light on the nature of the link. Indeed, a number of studies explore inter-individual variability in auditory and motor prototypes within a given language, and provide evidence for a link between both sets. In this paper, we attempt to simulate one study on coupled idiosyncrasies in the perception and production of French oral vowels, within COSMO, a Bayesian computational model of speech communication. First, we show that if the learning process in COSMO includes a communicative mechanism between a Learning Agent and a Master Agent, vowel production does display idiosyncrasies. Second, we implement within COSMO three models for speech perception that are, respectively, auditory, motor and perceptuo-motor. We show that no idiosyncrasy in perception can be obtained in the auditory model, since it is optimally tuned to the learning environment, which does not include the motor variability of the Learning Agent. On the contrary, motor and perceptuo-motor models provide perception idiosyncrasies correlated with idiosyncrasies in production. We draw conclusions about the role and importance of motor processes in speech perception, and propose a perceptuo-motor model in which auditory processing would enable optimal processing of learned sounds and motor processing would be helpful in unlearned adverse conditions.

Highlights

  • Auditory vs. articulatory invariance in speech communicationThe nature of phonetic invariance has been at the heart of lively exchanges among speech communication researchers [1]

  • The debate was first focused on speech perception, opposing tenants of auditory theories and auditory invariants [2, 3] and proponents of the motor theory of speech perception claiming that phonetic invariants would be motor [4, 5]; or rather articulatory in the direct realist perspective [6]

  • The debate propagated to the domain of speech production, once again contrasting the view that motor targets would be specified in terms of articulatory constrictions and vocal tract shapes [7, 8] and arguments in favor of auditory targets as reference frames for programming speech gestures [9,10,11,12]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Auditory vs. articulatory invariance in speech communicationThe nature of phonetic invariance has been at the heart of lively exchanges among speech communication researchers [1]. A converging set of recent studies confirms that the speech production system is activated and has a significant role in the speech perception process, in adverse conditions [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] It appears that, in the human brain, “the hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue”, quoting part of the title of a recent paper by [33]

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call