Does high variability training improve the learning of non-native phoneme contrasts over low variability training? A replication
Does high variability training improve the learning of non-native phoneme contrasts over low variability training? A replication
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jml.2022.104352
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-16
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Wonnacott, Elizabeth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brekelmans, Gwen;Lavan, Nadine;Wonnacott, Elizabeth
习得非母语语言的对比是很困难的。Logan， Lively和Pisoni（1991）的一项开创性研究证实了语音训练对提高非母语语音感知的有效性：日本英语学习者在15次训练中使用最小对训练来感知/r/-/l/。前/后测试设计建立了学习和泛化。在后续研究中，Lively、Logan和Pisoni（1993）提出了进一步的证据，表明说话者在训练刺激中的可变性是导致更大泛化的关键。这些发现非常有影响力，“高变异性语音训练”现在已成为该领域的标准方法。然而，虽然语音训练的一般好处被很好地复制，但高变异性训练优于低变异性训练的证据仍然是混合的。在使用最新统计分析的原始研究的大规模复制中，我们测试了学习者在使用多个说话者进行语音训练后是否比使用单个说话者进行语音训练后更能概括。我们发现听者在多说话和单说话两种情况下都能学习。然而，在训练中，我们发现听者在高可变性训练和低可变性训练中的学习效果没有差异。当将训练后的泛化与训练前的准确性进行比较时，我们发现了高可变性优于低可变性训练的模糊证据：这意味着如果存在高可变性的好处，其影响比最初想象的要小得多，因此无法在我们的166名听众样本中检测到。
Acquiring non-native speech contrasts can be difficult. A seminal study by Logan, Lively and Pisoni (1991) established the effectiveness of phonetic training for improving non-native speech perception: Japanese learners of English were trained to perceive /r/-/l/ using minimal pairs over 15 training sessions. A pre/post-test design established learning and generalisation.In a follow-up study, Lively, Logan and Pisoni (1993) presented further evidence which suggested that talker variability in training stimuli was crucial in leading to greater generalisation. These findings have been very influential and "high variability phonetic training" is now a standard meth-odology in the field. However, while the general benefit of phonetic training is well replicated, the evidence for an advantage of high over lower variability training remains mixed. In a large-scale replication of the original studies using updated statistical analyses we test whether learners generalise more after phonetic training using multiple talkers over a single talker. We find that listeners learn in both multiple and single talker conditions. However, in training, we find no difference in how well listeners learn for high vs low variability training. When comparing generalisation to novel talkers after training in relation to pre-training accuracy, we find ambiguous evidence for a high-variability benefit over low-variability training: This means that if a high-variability benefit exists, the effect is much smaller than originally thought, such that it cannot be detected in our sample of 166 listeners.