Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison...
-
Upload
jessie-farmer -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison...
![Page 1: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cognitive control and intoxicated speech
varianceThomas Purnell
University of Wisconsin-Madison
tcpurnell at wisc.edu
![Page 2: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Challenge
• How do we model intoxication to know the effect of ethyl alcohol on behavior?– Toxin-induced syndrome– Phonetic control and naturalness in
language variation and change
• Using intoxication as a tool– Allows for control of behavior– Intoxicate vernacular speech disrupts or
severs the speech chain
![Page 4: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Programmatic Goals
• Examine global and low level measures– Known prosodic or temporal information– Known spectral frequency information
• Unknown effects– On dialect – On forensics
• Research Question– Can acoustic features reliably correlate to
low-level (2 drinks) alcohol intoxication?
![Page 5: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Areas of Inquiry
1. Variation from the mean: Prosody and pacing
2. Global effects: Long-term average spectra
3. Lower level effects: Vernacular vowel changes
![Page 6: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Intoxicated speech generally
• Intoxicated speech affects motor control of speaking leading to coarticulatory, precision and timing differences from sober speech (Klingholz et al. 1988, Pisoni & Martin 1989, Behne & Rivera 1990, Hollien et al. 2001)
• In past, primary focus on prosody and
consonants (e.g., Hollien et al. 2001)
![Page 9: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Gross effects
• Dysfluencies are common at the sentence, word, and segmental levels
• Duration is increased, speaking rate decreases
• Sound substitutions/segmental changes– Lengthening of individual segments– Replacing [s] with [ʃ] is particularly common– Devoicing of final obstruents– Deaffrication– Spirantizing stops
![Page 10: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Recordings
• Subjects recorded as participated in a larger study (Moberg & Curtin 2009)
• As such, four recordings 1. Prior to intoxication (two drinks achieving a
BAC of 0.08% in 30 minutes; Curtin & Fairbanks 2003)
2. In the ascending arm of intoxication (15 minutes after the first drink)
3. At peak (30 minutes after first drink)4. In the descending arm (15 minutes, post-
peak intoxication).
![Page 11: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
BAC @ T1, T4
![Page 12: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Effects at 0.08 BAC
• Euphoric condition– Increase in talkativeness– Shortened attention span– Impaired judgment, relaxation– Impaired fine muscle coordination, but
not quite ataxia (begins soon after and by 0.12 BAC)
![Page 13: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
PROSODY AND PACING
![Page 14: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Acoustics of the actors’ speech simulation of intoxication
• Hollien, Liljegren, Martin & DeJong (2001) investigated the acoustics of the actors’ speech
• F0– Mean F0 higher under intoxication and simulated
intoxication for the males– Mean F0 higher under intoxication and lower under
simulated intoxication for the females
• Duration: statistically significantly longer for both real and feigned intoxication
• Intensity: showed no systematic change
![Page 15: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Pitch and Intoxication
• Guiding idea is that intoxication is a family of variances from the mean that exceed the standard variance– E.g., observing someone driving a car
involves multiple cues
• Hanke & Purnell (2006) – Pitch variation widely variant across the
four conditions– Placebo effect: belief and behavior
![Page 16: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
T1 Pitch
Z R IY1 CH HHIH1 Z F REH1 N Z S EY1 HH IY1 IH1 Z L
his reach his friends say he is looking
50
150
60
80
100
120
140
Time (s)28.75 30.46
28.7527194 30.4601862Rainbow4_aligner
DHHIH1 Z R IY1 CH HHIH1 Z F REH1N Z S EY1 HHIY1IH1 Z L
beyond his reach his friends say he islooking
50
150
60
80
100
120
140
Time (s)33.3 35.02
33.2959658 35.0200507Rainbow1_aligner
![Page 17: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
T4 Pitch
Z R IY1 CH HHIH1 Z F REH1 N Z S EY1 HH IY1 IH1 Z L
his reach his friends say he is looking
50
150
60
80
100
120
140
Time (s)28.75 30.46
28.7527194 30.4601862Rainbow4_aligner
DHHIH1 Z R IY1 CH HHIH1 Z F REH1N Z S EY1 HHIY1IH1 Z L
beyond his reach his friends say he islooking
50
150
60
80
100
120
140
Time (s)33.3 35.02
33.2959658 35.0200507Rainbow1_aligner
![Page 18: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Comparison of Prosody, S01 M
• T1 (137 seconds)• N = 66 phrases• xS Dur =1.5 sec• xS Phrase F0=117.6
Hz• xS Phrase Std=8.1
Hz• xS Min F0=102.7 Hz• xS Max F0=133.4 Hz
• T4 (123 seconds)• N = 48 phrases• xS Dur =2.2 sec• xS Phrase F0=119.0
Hz• xS Phrase Std=15.0
Hz• xS Min F0=95.6 Hz• xS Max F0=153.1 Hz
![Page 19: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Rainbow, Para 1
• When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above, and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Where do the breaks go?
![Page 20: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Rainbow, Para 1• When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, (8 words)• they act as a prism and form a rainbow. (9)• The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful
colors. (12)• These take the shape of a long round arch, (9)• with its path high above, (5)• and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. (8)• There is, according to legend, (5)• a boiling pot of gold at one end. (8)• People look, but no one ever finds it. (8)• When a man looks for something beyond his reach, (9)• his friends say he is looking for the pot of gold (11)• at the end of the rainbow. (6)
![Page 21: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Rainbow, Para 1, T1
• When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, [0.309] they act as a prism [0.170] and [0.140] form a rainbow. [0.898] The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. [0.329] These take the shape [0.439] of a long round arch, [0.678] with [0.858] its path high above, [0.289] and its two ends apparently [0.180] beyond the horizon. [0.509] There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at [0.200] one end. [0.758] People look, [0.050] but no one [0.100] ever finds it. [1.177] When a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot [0.040] of [0.220] gold [0.090] at the end of the [0.020] rainbow [1.207].
![Page 22: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Rainbow, Para 1, Time 4
• When the sunlight strikes [0.359] raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow. [0.259] The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. [0.748] These take the shape of a long round [0.110] arch, [0.050] with [0.190] its path high above, [0.529] and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. [0.788] There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of [0.040] gold [0.040] at one end. [0.629] People look, [0.050] but no one ever finds it. [0.778] When a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. [1.856]
![Page 23: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
(large) Phrase Boundaries
Word T1 T4
Rainbow 0.898 ----
Colors ----- 0.748
Arch/above 0.678 0.529
Horizon 0.509 0.788
End 0.758 0.629
It 1.177 0.777
Rainbow 1.207 1.856
![Page 24: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Work to do
• Verbal stumbling– Need to apply a more thorough family of
measures – Better statistical modeling: differences
in distribution
![Page 25: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
LONG TERM AVERAGE SPECTRA
![Page 26: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Long Term Average Spectra (LTAS)
• Measure overall energy envelope• Use longer passages• Gives a better picture of habitual vocal
tract behavior of an individual speaker• With enough speech, smooth out
situational variation
![Page 27: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Spectral envelope
“The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors.”
![Page 28: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
LTAS & bandwidth
500 Hz500 Hz 100 Hz100 Hz
1,000 Hz1,000 Hz
![Page 29: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Previous work
• Previous results have largely found just changes with no pattern besides simply variation (e.g., Schiel and Heinrich, 2009)
• Used for a wide variety of tasks to discriminate between different categories of speech (e.g., Boersma and Kovacic, 2006; Pauk, 2006)
• Our question was asked before, using LTAS to find acoustic cues to intoxication, but the full data are not available, and some experimental balances not in place (Klingholz et al. 1988)
![Page 30: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Importance for variationists
• Seems awkward because not fine-tuned measure
• May show gross effects of nasalization, pharyngealization, etc.
• All detail is not lost
• Unknown uses such as informing spectral tilt analyses
![Page 31: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Hypotheses
• Null • No difference in spectral energy between
sober and intoxicated states
• Test• Difference in spectral energy with
intoxicated speech being more variable in energy
• Difference in spectral energy with intoxicated speech being lower in energy
![Page 32: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Speakers & Task
• 10 native American English speakers from Wisconsin- Divided by gender- Average subject age: 26 (range, 21-36)
• 5 placebo subjects• 5 controls who came back after 2 weeks
![Page 33: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Acoustic Analysis
• Rainbow passage only• Recordings normalized • LTAS, 3 bandwidths
• 100 Hz• 500 Hz• 1,000 Hz
• Begin with contrastive states• T1 sober• T3 peak intoxication
• Paired t-tests
![Page 34: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
1kHz Bandwidth
Significant 2.8 dB average reduction under intoxication in 0-2kHz and 4-5kHz regions
![Page 35: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
500Hz Bandwidth
Significant 2.0 dB average reduction under intoxication in 500Hz-1.5kHz and 4-5kHz
![Page 36: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
100Hz Bandwidth
Significant 2.2 dB average reduction under intoxication in specific areas
![Page 37: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Fit of Parabolic Functions
![Page 38: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Normal Variation
• Five WI subjects’ normal variation• Small decrease in amplitude (0.8dB, cf 2.2 dB intox)
![Page 39: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Placebo Variation
• Five placebo subjects’ averaged variation• Small increase in amplitude (0.7dB)
![Page 40: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Subject consistency
Probability of reduction in amplitude for significant frequency ranges
![Page 41: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Placebo consistency
![Page 42: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Discussion
• Rejects the null hypothesis (“no systematic differences”) and tests hypothesis 1 (“intox. more variable”)
• Supports test hypothesis 2 (“intox. lowers envelope”)• Found statistically-significant variation across
the sober and intoxicated conditions reduced by roughly 2 dB
• Two general regions• 300 to 1300 Hz• 4 to 5 kHz
• Why?
![Page 43: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Low frequencies
• Physiological possibility• Alcohol inhibits tongue muscle (Krol, 1984)• Jaw lowering movement for low back
vowels (300 - 1300 Hz) is suppressed
800
400
F1: Vowel Height
F2: Vowel Backness
50015002500
a Ɔ
ʌo
![Page 44: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
High frequencies
• Potentially known “lush” characteristic
• Apical [s] laminal [ʃ]
• Fine motor control substituted by less accurate gross gesture
![Page 45: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Alternative: Overall nasality
If velopharyngeal port is left open, then expect overall lowering of spectral envelope
rainbow rainbow
![Page 46: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
VOWELS
![Page 47: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Intoxicated vowels
• Vowel formants in intoxicated speech may reduce (e.g., diminished F1/F2 ratio; Klingholz et al. 1988) and may be variable across speakers (Behne & Rivera 1990, Hollien et al. 2001)
• Other studies argue that a low blood alcohol content (BAC) affects vowels less than prosody and consonants (Pisoni & Martin 1989), perhaps because of greater aperture in vowels controlled by jaw movement (Perkell 1969, Stevens 1989)
![Page 48: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Sociophonetics of vowels
• But, we are more sophisticated in our understanding of vowels– E.g., /aj/, /aw/, /æ/ etc. should be examined by
following consonant; /o/ and /u/ with light of initial consonant, ...
– Vowels can be style shifted (Labov 2001), that is, vowels are under some conscious motor planning
• Need to take into account a speaker’s dialect, esp relation to contemporary vowel shifts and mergers
![Page 49: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Goal
• Describe and contextualize– Vowel changes within specific speakers– Between a speaker-internal control state
(not intoxicated) to speaker-internal test state (intoxicated)
• How does ethyl alcohol-induced motor control modify vowel qualities and interact with dialectal variation?
![Page 50: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Null Hypothesis
• No significant difference across intoxication level for subjects– Vowels in the vowel space should be the
same for the two times (Pisoni & Martin 1989)
– Perhaps because of the gross motor movement of the jaw involved in vowel articulation rather than fine aperture movements of consonants (Perkell 1969)
![Page 51: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Test Hypotheses1. Control
– Production of vowels becomes less accurate with intoxication, as would be the case if motor control simply breaks down under alcohol (Eckardt et al. 1998)
Reduction– Vowels become more centralized and reduced (e.g.,
smaller F1/F2 ratio for intoxication; Klingholz et al. 1988)
2. Standardization– If speakers’ shifting is an ‘active’ gesture for identity we
might expect that regional shifted vowels appear as unshifted towards a northern standard position
Vernacularization– Unshifted vowels become shifted if subjects who
produced more ‘rule-governed’ (in the Labov 2001 sense of female speech) or careful speech generally should be effected by alcohol (Moberg & Curtin 2009)
![Page 52: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
1. Control & Reduction
• Test of Control > more variability in all directions
• Test of Reduction > centralization
• Robust regression of overall data• Residuals from regression line
– Compare distribution to ‘own’ line– Compare residual distribution of intox to sober
![Page 53: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
2. Standardization & Vernacularization
• For /æ/, – Test Standardization > move down
continuum– Test Vernacularization > move up
continuum
• For /ɛ/, – Reverse direction
• For /ɔ/ and /a/, – Fronting and backing
![Page 54: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Selection of tokens
• Rainbow passage (Fairbanks 1960) • Two times examined: sober & post-
peak speech • Word classes important for upper
Midwestern Am English (Labov et al. 2006) – Ash raising: BET, BAT, BAD– Low back merger: BOT, BOUGHT– Canadian Raising: BITE along with
reference vowel classes (BEET, BAIT, BIDE)
![Page 55: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Subjects• Five female speakers• Average age 24.2 yrs at recording• From upper Midwest
![Page 56: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Measures
• Describe vowel space– NORM plots (Thomas & Kendall 2007)– Telsur G values (Labov et al. 2006)
• Vowel head and tail (Nearey & Assmann 1986; Andruski & Nearey 1992)– F1, F2, F3 (Hz), Euclidean distance– B1 (Hz)– F1/F2 ratio (Klingholz et al. 1988)
• T-tests on each word at two times
![Page 57: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
1. Control & Reduction
• Per speaker, regression line for each set of data (red = sober; blue = intox)– Front vowel continuum, approx BOT to BEET
• Examine sober and intox residuals from regression lines
• Histogram of sober residual distribution (red) and intox-from-sober distribution (blue)– Kertosis (K-3) suggests Control– Positive skewness suggests Reduction, negative
indicates peripherality
![Page 58: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Subj 2
K = 0.1s = -0.05
![Page 59: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Subj 42
K = 1.5s = -0.77
![Page 60: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Subj 31
K = 1.8s = -0.65
![Page 61: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Subj 50
K = 5.1s = -1.8
![Page 62: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Subj 44
K = -0.7s = -0.49
![Page 63: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Slope
• Very similar between sober and intox• Three subjects close to normal
distribution– S2, intox inside sober (reduced??)– S42, intox outside sober (peripheral??)– S31, lines are almost identical
• Two subjects show some rotation– S50, high kurtosis– S44, negative kurtosis but rotation at
mid-vowel space
![Page 64: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Summary
• Control– Compact (leptokurtic), 4 of 5 speakers– Diffuse (platykurtic), 1 of 5 speakers– S50 only sharply compact– S44, diffusion suggests control, but rotation of
continuum more suggestive of something else
• Reduction– All speakers have a negative skewness of intox
to sober regression, i.e., more data points peripherally
– S44 reduction of high vowels; peripheralization of low vowels > inconsistent
![Page 65: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
2. Standardization & Vernacularization
• Overall measures are inconsistent and what looks like reduction is vowel continuum rotation (S50, S44)
• Therefore, examine individual vowels – Stable: BEET, BAIT, BOT– Variable: BET, BAN, BAT, BITE, BIDE
![Page 66: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Subj 2
![Page 67: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Subj 42
![Page 68: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Subj 31
![Page 69: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Subj 50
![Page 70: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Subj 44
![Page 71: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Significant results, paired t-tests (p<0.05)
• F1– BAT, BAN, BITE
• F2– BET
• F1/F2 ratio– BAT, BAN
• Euclidean distance (Δ trajectory)– BAN, BITE
![Page 72: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Summary of Reference Vowels
• BEET– Relatively close– Intoxicated variant can be inside (S2, S44), at
(S31, S42) or outside (S50) the control– Changes relative to overall slope of front
continuum• BAIT
– Most consistent vowel for three speakers– Some lowering/centering (S31, S42)
• BET– Significant sober-intox F2 difference in t-test– Reduced vowel
![Page 73: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
BET
![Page 74: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Summary of Ash Raising• BAN
– Centering (2), lowering (2, 44, 31, 50), peripheral (42, 50??)– Significant differences for F1, F1/F2 ratio and Euclidean
distance
• BAD– Generally centering, but due to weak selection of BAD tokens– Wrt BAN, equalish (S31), lower (S2, S42, S44, S50) but the
lowering of BAN and raising of BAD moves them closer– Some raising (S42, S50) and some lowering (S2)
• BAT– Expect to be stable, but tends to rise when intoxicated, not
centered– Intoxicated variants are raised for all subjects except S44– Significant differences for F1 and F1/F2 ratio
![Page 75: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
BAT
![Page 76: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Summary of Low Back Vowels
• BOT– F2 generally just above 1,400 Hz– S2, S42, S44 show intox lowering and fronting
while S31 and S50 show raising of intox
• BOUGHT– F2 generally below 1,200 Hz– General pattern is for intox to be higher and
more central, although lower and peripheral for S31 and S44 (rotation?)
– S31 might be fronting
![Page 77: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
BOUGHT
![Page 78: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Summary of Canadian Raising vowels
• BIDE– Central to continuum line (S2)– Slight rise (S2, S31, S50), slight lowering
(S42)• BITE
– Central to continuum line (S2, S42, S44)– Same height (S2), lowering to line (S50),
lowering (S31, S42)– Significant differences for length of
trajectory, intox are shorter than sober > reduction?
![Page 79: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Vowel Trajectory Length
BAN, BITE: significance on t-test
![Page 80: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Consistent Variation?
• Cross-speaker variation (Behne & Rivera 1990, Hollien et al. 2001)– Surprisingly some consistency in holding
to continuum– BAT raising, not centering or
low/fronting– Need to solve issue of normalizing to
slope before explaining reduction
![Page 81: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Standardization & Vernacularization
• Standardization has to go on, but perhaps situation is not right to test
• Vernacularization looks promising with BAT
![Page 82: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
BROAD CONCLUSIONS
![Page 83: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Towards an understanding of cognitive control
• Prosody– Control > sychronization of events
• Global speech– Control > velum
• Vowel variation– Control > jaw
![Page 84: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Towards an understanding of cognitive control
• Rotation problem with dispersion theory and reduction story– Need to look at entire vowel space to see if
back continuum also is more upright
• More likely slope rotation reflects emphasis on (privative) vowel height– More studies with articulation and intoxication
• Alcohol blocks/removes/… sensitivity to social/linguistic/formality rules by females– Analysis of males
![Page 85: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Thank You.
Special thanks to John Curtin, Ryan Hanke, Eric Raimy, Blake Rodgers, Joe Salmons, and Nicholas Williams for assistance with recordings, data and comments. Partial funding by generous support of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Errors are mine, all mine.
![Page 86: Cognitive control and intoxicated speech variance Thomas Purnell University of Wisconsin-Madison tcpurnell at wisc.edu.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062714/56649cf85503460f949c8efd/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
References• ANDRUSKI, JEAN E. and NEAREY, TERRANCE M. 1992. On the sufficiency of compound target
specification of isolated vowels and vowels in/bVb/syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91.390-410.
• BEHNE, D.M. and RIVERA, S.M. 1990. Effects of alcohol on speech: Acoustic analysis of spondees. Research on Speech Perception, 16.263-91. BEHNE, D.M. and RIVERA, S.M. 1990. Effects of alcohol on speech: Acoustic analysis of spondees. Research on Speech Perception, 16.263-91.
• ECKARDT, M.J., CAMPBELL, G.A., MARIETTA, CH.A., MAJCHRONWICZ, E. and WEIGHT, F. 1988. Acute ethanol administration selectively alters localized cerebral glucose metabolism. Brain Research, 444.53-58.
• FAIRBANKS, G. 1960. The rainbow passage. New York: Harper & Row.• HOLLIEN, H., DEJONG, G., MARTIN, C. A., SCHWARTZ, R. and LILJEGREN, K. 2001. Effects of
ethanol intoxication on speech suprasegmentals [Dec]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110.3198-206.
• KLINGHOLZ, F., PENNING, R. and LIEBHARDT, E. 1988. Recognition of Low-Level Alcohol-Intoxication from Speech Signal [Sep]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84.929-35.
• LABOV, WILLIAM. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors.vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.
• LABOV, WILLIAM, ASH, SHARON and BOBERG, CHARLES. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• MOBERG, C. A. and CURTIN, J. J. 2009. Alcohol Selectively Reduces Anxiety but Not Fear: Startle Response During Unpredictable Versus Predictable Threat [May]. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118.335-47.
• NEAREY, TERRANCE M. and ASSMANN, PETER F. 1986. Modeling the role of inherent spectral change in vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80.1297-308.
• PERKELL, JOSEPH S. 1969. Physiology of speech production: Results and implications of a quantitative cineradiographic study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• PISONI, D. B. and MARTIN, C. S. 1989. Effects of Alcohol on the Acoustic-Phonetic Properties of Speech - Perceptual and Acoustic Analyses [Aug]. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research, 13.577-87.
• STEVENS, KENNETH N. 1989. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 17.3-45.• THOMAS, ERIK R. and KENDALL, TYLER. 2007. NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting
suite. [ Online Resource: http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/ ]