Subject: Re: Non-phonological stimuli From: Heriberto Avelino <avelino@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:13:09 -0700 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Dear Livia, In the past I have used reversed speech as non-linguistic stimuli. Systematically, subjects reported that they heard these sounds as such (for instance, frog-calls, mechanical sounds (machine-like) or just random noises.) More importantly none of the subjects in our experiments reported a language related stimuli. Obviously, such a stimuli preserve all the relevant properties of speech. I would be very interested to learn about the replies you might get from the list. Best, Heriberto Livia King wrote: > Dear List, > > I am doing a project involving phonological processing using auditory > words and pseudowords. I am trying to find a good non-phonological > control stimulus that does not contain recognizable phonemes, but > still has similar characteristics and complexity to speech. An ideal > solution would be some kind of filtering or distortion that I could > apply to my existing word stimuli so that each word is matched with > its own control, but I would be open to independently generated > stimuli as well. I have tried playing the words backwards, and have > experimented a little with band pass filtering, but the results still > end up sounding too "phonological." Does anyone know of better > options? Since we're doing a matching task, each control stimulus > would also have to be unique sounding enough for our subjects to > discriminate. > Thank you in advance, > Livia King ******************************************************* 'Life is short but wide' Heriberto Avelino Department of Linguistics 1203 Dwinelle Hall, University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-2650 Phone: (510) 642-2757 Fax: (510) 643-5688 http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~avelino/ skype: betito_cute *******************************************************