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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |