Disentangling the Effects of Matching Content and Simultaneous Speech on Phonetic Adaptation

Figures & data

Figure 1. The one-voice professor: all combinations of matching/differing and simultaneous/alternating joint speech.

Table 1. The stimuli words and the associated English pronunciation symbol for their vowel sound

Vowel
ou	How	Now
ō	Go	Know	No	So
ī	By	My	Lie	Eye
ōō	Few	New	Two	You	Do	Who
ē	He	Me	Sea	See	She	Tree
ā	Hey	May	Ray	Say	Stay	They	Way	Day

Table 2. Envoicement questionnaire

1	It seemed like the recorded voice was my own voice
2	It seemed like I heard my own voice twice
3	It seemed like I had more than one voice
4	The recorded voice started to resemble my own voice
5	My own voice started to resemble the recorded voice
6	It seemed like the recorded voice came from my own mouth

Figure 2. Adaptation of f0, f1, f2 and HNR per condition.

Table 3. Summary of mixed effects models; p < 0.05 indicated with an asterisk. Effect size d based on Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) and Westfall et al. (2014)

	Estimate	SE	t-value	X^2	p-value	d
f0 model
Intercept	−1.77	2.40	−0.74
Gender	2.55	1.86	1.37	1.87	.171
Match	4.96	2.47	2.01	0.93	.334
Sim	−0.39	2.48	−0.16	4.59	.032*	0.12
Match x Sim	−6.47	3.46	−1.87	3.49	.061
Vowel-sound				4.65	.460
ou	−3.11	2.47	−1.26
ā	−1.35	1.75	−0.77
ē	1.19	1.85	0.65
ō	−0.80	2.02	−0.39
ōō	−0.41	1.84	−0.22
f1 model
Intercept	30.29	40.64	0.75
Gender	−25.70	30.15	−0.85	0.73	.394
Match	−4.54	39.89	−0.11	0.54	.461
Sim	48.21	40.09	1.20	1.32	.251
Match x Sim	−31.33	55.99	−0.56	0.31	.576
Vowel-sound				2.68	.749
ou	−3.16	45.87	−0.07
ā	−30.68	32.43	−0.95
ē	−39.68	34.19	−1.16
ō	2.83	37.45	0.08
ōō	−22.82	34.19	−0.67
f2 model
Intercept	11.24	83.18	0.14
Gender	−23.67	66.56	−0.36	0.13	.722
Match	38.82	88.08	0.44	0.42	.515
Sim	94.43	88.51	1.07	2.39	.122
Match x Sim	2.38	123.59	0.02	0.00	.985
Vowel-sound				0.66	.985
ou	54.49	79.59	0.69
ā	4.14	56.28	0.07
ē	14.07	59.32	0.24
ō	0.21	64.98	0.00
ōō	−0.16	59.32	−0.00
HNR model
Intercept	−0.08	0.14	−0.53
Gender	−0.09	0.12	−0.83	0.69	.407
Match	0.09	0.15	0.59	0.03	.855
Sim	0.12	0.15	0.77	0.19	.660
Match x Sim	−0.14	0.22	−0.64	0.41	.520
Vowel-sound				6.08	.298
ou	0.16	0.13	1.27
ā	0.01	0.09	0.16
ē	0.16	0.09	1.73
ō	0.00	0.10	0.01
ōō	0.07	0.09	0.71

Table 4. Descriptive statistics. For matching, 0 = differing content, 1 = matching content. For simultaneity, 0 = alternating speech, 1 = simultaneous speech

	Mean	SD		Mean	SD
Δ f0 (Hz)			Δ f1 (Hz)
Matching			Matching
0	−0.85	21.06	0	17.99	519.69
1	1.06	34.72	1	−4.52	532.31
Simultaneity			Simultaneity
0	1.82	35.91	0	−8.39	526.71
1	−1.57	19.31	1	21.32	525.32
Δ f2 (Hz)			Δ HNR (dB)
Matching			Matching
0	51.89	905.87	0	−0.02	1.40
1	89.25	956.20	1	−0.00	1.59
Simultaneity			Simultaneity
0	24.00	886.24	0	−0.03	1.40
1	116.56	972.23	1	0.01	1.59

Table 5. Pearson correlations, p < 0.05 indicated with an asterisk

	Int S	Int A	Ext S	Pro S	Pro A	Env	Like	ΔRT	ΔMis	Δf0	Δf1	Δf2	ΔHNR
Interoceptive Sensibility	-
Interoceptive Accuracy	−0.1	-
Exteroceptive Sensibility	0.2	0.0	-
Proprioceptive Sensibility	0.3*	−0.1	0.2	-
Proprioceptive Accuracy	0.1	0.0	0.1	−0.1	-
Envoicement	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.2*	0.1	-
Likeness	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.4*	-
Δ Reaction time	−0.2	0.1	0.0	−0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	-
Δ Mistakes	−0.1	−0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	−0.3*	-
Δ f0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	−0.1	-
Δ f1	0.0	−0.2	0.1	0.1	−0.1	−0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	−0.1	-
Δ f2	0.0	−0.1	0.2*	0.1	0.1	−0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.7*	-
Δ HNR	−0.1	0.0	−0.1	0.1	−0.1	0.1	−0.2*	−0.1	−0.1	0.1	0.0	−0.1	-

Figure 3. Adaptation of f0, f1, f2 and HNR per condition.

Table 6. Summary of mixed effects models, p < 0.01 indicated with double asterisk, p < 0.05 with one asterisk. Effect size d based on Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) and Westfall et al. (2014)

	Estimate	SE	t-value	X^2	p-value	d
f0 model
Intercept	−4.73	2.54	−1.86
Gender	2.99	2.35	1.27	1.61	.204
Match	3.72	3.25	1.15	4.03	.045*	0.18
Sim	−1.29	3.19	−0.41	0.05	.819
Match x Sim	1.56	4.53	0.35	0.12	.730
f1 model
Intercept	39.95	18.14	2.20
Gender	−1.42	16.33	−0.09	0.01	.931
Match	−18.26	22.53	−0.81	2.69	.101
Sim	−35.06	22.11	−1.59	7.07	.008**	0.21
Match x Sim	−14.34	31.45	−0.46	0.21	.648
f2 model
Intercept	64.13	27.36	2.34
Gender	−27.14	24.54	−1.11	1.22	.269
Match	−14.55	33.86	−0.43	0.73	.393
Sim	−56.21	33.24	−1.69	6.67	.009**	0.20
Match x Sim	−10.72	47.26	−0.23	0.05	.820
HNR model
Intercept	−0.04	0.18	−0.21
Gender	0.32	0.17	1.89	3.61	.058
Match	−0.07	0.23	−0.32	0.93	.334
Sim	−0.25	0.23	−1.09	3.98	.046*	0.16
Match x Sim	−0.16	0.32	−0.49	0.24	.623

Table 7. Descriptive statistics. For matching, 0 = differing content, 1 = matching content. For simultaneity, 0 = alternating speech, 1 = simultaneous speech

	Mean	SD		Mean	SD
Δ f0 (Hz)			Δ f1 (Hz)
Matching			Matching
0	−3.51	27.79	0	21.53	217.25
1	0.92	22.13	1	−5.51	189.89
Simultaneity			Simultaneity
0	−1.41	26.94	0	30.67	197.58
1	−1.33	23.68	1	−12.39	209.43
Δ f2 (Hz)			Δ HNR (dB)
Matching			Matching
0	19.07	346.54	0	0.04	1.64
1	−2.39	312.32	1	−0.13	1.78
Simultaneity			Simultaneity
0	42.87	327.09	0	0.09	1.77
1	−23.37	330.66	1	−0.18	1.64

Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1 9). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar