Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception

The challenge of prosodic annotation is reflected in commonly reported variability among trained annotators in the assignment of prosodic labels. The present study examines individual differences in the perception of prosody through the lens of prosodic annotation. First, Generalized Additive Mixed...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Joseph Roy, Jennifer Cole, Timothy Mahrt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Library of Humanities 2017-09-01
Series:Laboratory Phonology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/108
id doaj-90511e49d31645bfab80ba6891274a60
record_format Article
spelling doaj-90511e49d31645bfab80ba6891274a602021-10-02T01:44:41ZengOpen Library of HumanitiesLaboratory Phonology1868-63541868-63542017-09-018110.5334/labphon.10844Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perceptionJoseph Roy0Jennifer Cole1Timothy Mahrt2University of IllinoisUniversity of Illinois; and Northwestern UniversityAix-Marseille UniversitéThe challenge of prosodic annotation is reflected in commonly reported variability among trained annotators in the assignment of prosodic labels. The present study examines individual differences in the perception of prosody through the lens of prosodic annotation. First, Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) reveal the non-linear pattern of some acoustic cues on the perception of prosodic features. Second, these same models reveal that while some of the untrained annotators are using these cues to determine prosodic features, the magnitude of effect differs quite dramatically across the annotators. Finally, the trained annotators follow the same cues as subsets of the untrained annotators, but present a much stronger effect for many of the cues. The findings show that while prosody perception is systemically related to acoustic and contextual cues, there are also individual differences that are limited to the selection and magnitude of the factors that influence prosodic rating, and the relative weighting among those factors.https://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/108prosodyannotationindividual differencesgeneralized additive mixed modelsinter-rater reliabilityspeech transcription
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Joseph Roy
Jennifer Cole
Timothy Mahrt
spellingShingle Joseph Roy
Jennifer Cole
Timothy Mahrt
Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
Laboratory Phonology
prosody
annotation
individual differences
generalized additive mixed models
inter-rater reliability
speech transcription
author_facet Joseph Roy
Jennifer Cole
Timothy Mahrt
author_sort Joseph Roy
title Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
title_short Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
title_full Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
title_fullStr Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
title_full_unstemmed Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
title_sort individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception
publisher Open Library of Humanities
series Laboratory Phonology
issn 1868-6354
1868-6354
publishDate 2017-09-01
description The challenge of prosodic annotation is reflected in commonly reported variability among trained annotators in the assignment of prosodic labels. The present study examines individual differences in the perception of prosody through the lens of prosodic annotation. First, Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) reveal the non-linear pattern of some acoustic cues on the perception of prosodic features. Second, these same models reveal that while some of the untrained annotators are using these cues to determine prosodic features, the magnitude of effect differs quite dramatically across the annotators. Finally, the trained annotators follow the same cues as subsets of the untrained annotators, but present a much stronger effect for many of the cues. The findings show that while prosody perception is systemically related to acoustic and contextual cues, there are also individual differences that are limited to the selection and magnitude of the factors that influence prosodic rating, and the relative weighting among those factors.
topic prosody
annotation
individual differences
generalized additive mixed models
inter-rater reliability
speech transcription
url https://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/108
work_keys_str_mv AT josephroy individualdifferencesandpatternsofconvergenceinprosodyperception
AT jennifercole individualdifferencesandpatternsofconvergenceinprosodyperception
AT timothymahrt individualdifferencesandpatternsofconvergenceinprosodyperception
_version_ 1716860466104369152