Understanding native Russian listeners’ errors on an English word recognition test: Model-based analysis of phoneme confusion

References

• American National Standards Institute. 2010. ANSI-S3.6-2010, Specifications for Audiometers. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 1990. Guidelines for screening for hearing impairments and middle-ear disorders. ASHA, 32, 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Barry S. 1989. Aspects of sonorant devoicing in Russian. Speech Hear Lang, 3, 47–59.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie R.C., Edgerton B.J. & Svihorec D.J. 1977. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord, 42, 60–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Best C.T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In: Strange. W (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Baltimore, USA: York Press, pp. 171–204.
   Google Scholar
• Bohn O.-S. & Flege J. 1990. Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Appl Psychol, 11, 303–328.
   Google Scholar
• Cakiroglu S. & Danhauer J.L. 1992. Effects of listeners’ and talkers’ linguistic backgrounds on W-22 test performance. J Am Acad Audiol, 3, 186–192.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carney E. & Schlauch R.S. 2007. Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 1203–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cebrian J. 2006. Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. J Phon, 34, 372–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler A., Weber A., Smits R. & Cooper N. 2004. Patterns of English phonemes confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 3668–3678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgutte B. & Kiang N.Y.S. 1984. Speech coding in the auditory nerve. III. Voiceless fricative consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 75, 887–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Dirks D.D. & Langhofer L.R. 1982. Evaluation of hearing- impaired listeners using a nonsense-syllable test II: Syllable recognition and consonant confusion patterns. J Speech Hear Res, 25, 141–148.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flege J.E. 1995. Second language speech learning theory, findings, and problems. In: Strange. W (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Baltimore, USA: York Press, pp. 233–277.
   Google Scholar
• Flege J.E., Takagi N. & Mann V. 1996. Lexical familiarity and English- language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of / / and /l/. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 1161–1173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia Lecumberri M.L. & Cooke M. 2006. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 2445–2554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand S.A. 1998. Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 1088–1102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilichinskaya Y.D. & Strange W. 2010. Perceptual assimilation of American English vowels by inexperienced Russian listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, EL80–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guion S.G., Flege J.E., Akahane-Yamada R. & Pruitt J.C. 2000. An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 2711–2724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancin-Bhatt B. 1994. Segmental transfer: A natural consequence of a dynamic system. Second Lang Res, 10, 242–270.
   Google Scholar
• Hatch E. & Lazaraton A. 1991. The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston, USA: Newbury House, pp. 404–406.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes B. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In: Aronoff M & Oehrle R.T. (eds.), Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press, pp. 318–328.
   Google Scholar
• Hillenbrand J., Getty L.A., Clark M.J. & Wheeler K. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 3099–3111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood J.D. 1990. The pattern of consonant and vowel errors in patients with conductive and cochlear hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 24, 167–169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenkins J.J. Strange W. & Trent S.A. 1999. Context-independent dynamic information for the perception of coarticulated vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 438–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D. & Ward D. 1969. The Phonetics of Russian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kewley-Port D., Burkle T.Z. & Lee J.H. 2007. Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 2365–2375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondaurova M.V. & Francis A.L. 2008. The relationship between native allophonic experience with vowel duration and perception of the English tense/lax vowel contrast by Spanish and Russian listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 3959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krakow R. 1999. Physiological organization of syllables: A review. J Phon, 27, 23–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labov W. 1998. The three dialects of English. In: Linn M.D. (ed.), Handbook of Dialects and Language Variation. San Diego, USA: Academic Press, pp. 1075–1122.
   Google Scholar
• Levey S. & Cruz D. 2004. The discrimination of English vowels by bilingual Spanish/English and monolingual English speakers. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sci Disord, 31, 162–172.
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney B. 1992. Transfer and competition in second language learning. In Harris R.J. (ed.), Cognitive Processes in Bilinguals. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 371–390.
   Google Scholar
• Marian V., Blumenfeld H.K. & Kaushanskaya, M. 2007. The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 940–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo L.H., Florentine M. & Buus S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 686–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McArdle R. & Wilson R.H. 2008. Prediction of word recognition performance in noise by young listeners with normal hearing using acoustic, phonetic, and lexical variables. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 507–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. & Nicely P.E. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 27, 338–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moosmüller S. & Ringen C. 2004. Voice and aspiration in Austrian German plosives. Folia Linguistica, 38, 43–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford R. & Shearin J. 1994. Language learning motivation: The theoretical framework. Mod Lang J, 78, 12–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padgett J. 2002. Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v]. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett J. 2003. Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. Nat Lang Linguist Theory, 21, 39–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson G.E. & Barney H.L. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 24, 175–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raphael L.J. & Bell-Berti F. 1975. Tongue musculature and the feature of tension in English vowels. Phonetica, 32, 61–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redford M.A. & Diehl R.L. 1999. The relative perceptual distinctiveness of initial and final consonants in CVC syllables. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1555–1565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Repp B.H. 1983. Bidirectional context effects in the perception of VC-CV sequences. Percept Psychophys, 33, 147–155.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rochet B.L. 1995. Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In Strange W (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, pp. 379–410.
   Google Scholar
• Shafiro V. & Kharkhurin A.V. 2009. The role of native-language phonology in the auditory word identification and visual word recognition of Russian-English bilinguals. J Psycholinguist Res, 38, 93–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. 2009. Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language listeners’ recognition of English words in competing signals. Int J Audiol, 48, 270–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. & Sánchez D. 2010. Spanish/English bilingual listeners on clinical word recognition tests: What to expect and how to predict. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 53, 1096–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. & Sánchez D. 2011. The role of word familiarity in Spanish/English bilingual word recognition. Int J Audiol, 50, 66–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S. & Black J.W. 1966. Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. J Acoust Soc Am, 39, 372–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange W., Weber A., Levy E.S., Shafiro V., Hisagi M. . Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1111–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thornton A.R. & Raffin M.J.M. 1978. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 21, 507–518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tillman T.W. & Carhart R. 1966. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• United States Bureau of the Census. 2003. Press Release CB 03–157.
   Google Scholar
• Wang M.D. & Bilger R.C. 1973. Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. J Acoust Soc Am, 54, 1248–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R. & Roberts H. 2008. A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU No. 6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 496–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar