Impact of acoustic similarity on efficiency of verbal information transmission via subtle prosodic cues

Bohan Chen,Kazuya Takeda,Norihide Kitaoka

doi:10.1186/s13636-016-0097-6

Bohan Chen, Kazuya Takeda + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13636-016-0097-6

Copy DOI

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the effect of tiny acoustic differences on the efficiency of prosodic information transmission. Study participants listened to textually ambiguous sentences, which could be understood with prosodic cues, such as syllable length and pause length. Sentences were uttered in voices similar to the participant's own voice and in voices dissimilar to their own voice. The participants then identified which of four pictures the speaker was referring to. Both the eye movement and response time of the participants were recorded. Eye tracking and response time results both showed that participants understood the textually ambiguous sentences faster when listening to voices similar to their own. The results also suggest that tiny acoustic features, which do not contain verbal meaning can influence the processing of verbal information.

Highlights

Language comprehension involves a complex interaction between the transmitted message and the receiver’s background knowledge and experiences [1]
4 Conclusions We designed and conducted experiments to investigate the effect of subtle prosodic similarity on the efficiency of prosodic information transmission
Analysis of the response time data showed that participants identified ambiguous target images more quickly when they heard voices similar to their own

Summary

Introduction

Language comprehension involves a complex interaction between the transmitted message and the receiver’s background knowledge and experiences [1]. As a result of this complexity, differences in representation styles can clearly influence the efficiency of our language comprehension process. Listeners have difficulty interpreting “garden path” sentences, i.e., grammatically correct sentences which have meanings different from those that a listener would normally expect. “The dog that I had really loved bones,” and “I told her children are noisy.”. Such sentences are considered to be evidence of our sequential reading process (i.e., one word read at a time) [3] “The dog that I had really loved bones,” and “I told her children are noisy.” Such sentences are considered to be evidence of our sequential reading process (i.e., one word read at a time) [3]

Methods

Results

Conclusion