August 9, 2015

August 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is my ninth response to “Talker-specific learning in speech perception” by Nygaard and Pisoni (1998). It amazes me that the relation between “the indexical properties of the speech signal” and “the more abstract linguistic content of an utterance” needs to be pointed out. My reasoning is based on Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in which what we say is as important as how we say it. Reasoning which is based on what I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) creates a split between what we say and how we say it. The former is more important than the latter in NVB.

We must realize that “the problem” created by this split only occurs in NVB and never in SVB. There is no problem that in SVB these two are conveyed simultaneously. Surely, most researchers are unaware of the great difference between SVB and NVB. That is why they write that “The essence of the problem is that both types of information are conveyed simultaneously along the same acoustic dimensions within the speech signal."

Actually, they are unknowingly saying that NVB is problem. Only in NVB “the information about the talker must be disentangled from information about the linguistic content of the utterance.” What they call “perceptual normalization” I call SVB, as SVB includes “an account of the processing and representation of both the linguistic and the indexical information that are carried in parallel in the speech signal.” This is a sophisticated way of describing SVB. Moreover, while SVB normalizes our perception, NVB can be said to distort our perception. It is only a small step from “talker variability” to a different way of talking, that is to SVB and NVB.

“Several studies have shown that talker variability has a significant impact both on the perceptual processing of spoken utterances and on the memory representations constructed during the perception of spoken language.” The interpretation of such studies begins to make much more sense when we identify such impact as the positive or negative emotions in the listener.

The two subclasses of vocal verbal behavior, SVB and NVB, refer to how the listener’s affective experiences interact with “perceptual processing” and “memory representations constructed during the perception of spoken language.” A reinterpretation of the research makes clear that because of a certain way of talking we perceive reality as it is, as we embody that reality during our spoken language.

“Talker variability has been shown to affect both vowel perception." Also, it was found that "perceptual identification of words presented in noise was significantly poorer when the words were produced by multiple talkers than when they were produced by a single talker." Once we are familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction it is quite clear that only SVB can improve vowel perception and spoken word recognition, while NVB will always impair it.

Perceptual identification of words presented in noise will only be better if this single talker has SVB, but not if he or she has NVB. If among multiple talkers there would be a couple of SVB talkers and if the single talker would be a NVB talker, then perceptual identification of words uttered by multiple talkers is hypothesized to be higher than for the single talker. Also, the “difficulty ignoring irrelevant variation in the talker’s voice when asked to classify syllables by initial phoneme” is hypothesized to only occur with a NVB speaker, but not a SVB speaker. To the contrary, with a SVB speaker’s variability is believed to enhance perception.

“Aspects of the speech signal related to classifying talker identity seem to be integrally linked to attributes related to the processing of the linguistic content of the signal.” They are, but we can only acknowledge this during SVB, whereas during NVB we deny this. Thus, we understand each other better during SVB in which the speaker talks with, not at the listener. In SVB there is no need to classify talker’s identity as the listener is safe, but in NVB talker’s identity is important as the talker threatens the listener.

August 8, 2015

August 8, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my eight response to  “Talker-specific learning in speech perception” by Nygaard and Pisoni (1998). “The human voice conveys a considerable amount of information about a speaker’s physical, social, and psychological characteristics, and these aspects of speech, referred to as indexical information, complement the processing of linguistic content during spoken communication.” 

A speaker’s voice produces Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and this “indexical information” about the speaker conveys to the listener, whether he or she is safe or not. Since there is no aversive stimulation of the listener by the speaker during SVB, SVB is the spoken communication of safety. In NVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is experienced as a noxious stimulus, which aversively affects the listener. 

During NVB the speaker threatens the listener. Only during SVB can these indexical effects be separated from the linguistic content, but during NVB they contradict the content or distract from it. As the listener is affectively influenced by the sound of the speaker’s voice, it is important to detect whether the speaker induces positive or negative emotions in the listener. 

Since each speaker is also his or her own listener, the speaker-as-own-listener must make sure whether he or she is not producing a sound with which he or she makes him or herself feel unsafe. It is hypothesized that the paranoid schizophrenic produces his or her own paranoid affect, that is, the covert speech of the paranoid schizophrenic is considered to be an effect of the overt NVB speech of others. Thus, NVB private speech is a result of NVB public speech. Moreover, the paranoid schizophrenic is believed to be stuck with his or her own negative self-talk, which distracts from and often completely negates public speech. Similarly, a bipolar person’s mania, a depressed person’s isolative behavior or an obsessed person’s fear of germs, is a function of NVB self-talk, which is conditioned by NVB public speech. 

The only way to remedy negative NVB self-talk, which, due to different phylogenetic, ontogenetic and cultural variables is expressed differently by different people, is to join listening and speaking behaviors, that is, to listen and speak simultaneously and to produce SVB. ‘Mental illness’ therefore is construed as a listener’s response to NVB, which can only be remediated by SVB in which an individual's listening and speaking behaviors are joined. 

In practice this means that the listener must be speaking in order to be able to hear him or herself. Based on the SVB/NVB distinction, the goal of every therapist should be to shape speaker-as-own-listener behaviors in patients. When given the opportunity to do so, that is, when appropriately stimulated to express him or herself, the ‘mentally ill’ listener will be again capable of recognizing if he or she experiences the speaker as threatening or not.  


“These psychological factors are readily perceived when anger, depression, or happiness is recognized in a speaker’s voice.” The fact that this listener’s ability is not learned and is causing all sorts of problems, which, from a behavioral perspective can be accounted for as the separation of speaking and listening behavior, has always been downplayed by the NVB speakers. 


Many so-called ‘mental health problems’ would never exist if speakers, therapists and psychiatrists included, would notice how their coercive voice negatively affects the listener. “In everyday conversation, the indexical properties of the speech signal become quite important as perceivers use this information to govern their own speaking styles and responses.” 


When a listener is repeatedly exposed to or involved in NVB he or she will be conditioned to produce NVB. ”From more permanent characteristics of a speaker’s voice that provide information about identity to the short-term vocal changes related to emotion or “tone of voice,” indexical information contributes to the overall interpretation of a speaker’s utterance.” 


The meaning of what the speaker says is found most importantly in how he or she sounds. If it doesn’t resemble how the listener was conditioned to sound it will make no sense to him or her. NVB has conditioned listeners with coercive behavioral control. A listener thus conditioned would only be able to respond to a forceful and demanding voice of a NVB speaker.   

August 7, 2015

August 7, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This writing is my seventh response to “Talker-specific learning in speech perception” by Nygaard and Pisoni (1998). I agree with the authors that “the abstractionist approach to speech perception and spoken language recognition” which “ suggests that the traditional view of perceptual normalization and its long-standing emphasis on the search for abstract, canonical linguistic units as the endpoint of perception may need to be reconsidered or abandoned entirely.” However, this is only likely going to happen if we change the way in which we talk. 

Only if we recognize the “abstractionist approach” as representing Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) will we be able to replace it with Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Although it is encouraging to read that “Over the last few years, a number of researchers have demonstrated that stimulus variability is a rich source of information that is encoded and stored in memory

along with the linguistic content of a talker’s utterance", this doesn’t result into the new SVB way of talking. It makes a few of the experts read and write more about talking, but it doesn’t and it can’t do anything to increase talking, or, more precisely, to increase SVB and to decrease NVB. 

The finding that speech perception “employs highly detailed and specific encodings of speech which preserve many attributes of the acoustic signal” only makes sense while we speak. It cannot, it was not and it will not be expressed in NVB. If we are going to express this knowledge appropriately while we talk, we must learn to have SVB. As we haven’t learned to create and maintain SVB and as we are only beginning to become aware of its possibility, it is crucially important that this writing results into speaking, because if it doesn’t, it will only further enhance NVB, which perpetuates the separation between speaker and listener, organism and environment. 

August 6, 2015

August 6, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my sixth response to“Talker-specific learning in speech perception” by Nygaard and Pisoni (1998). These researchers give a good example of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) by stating that “variation” in “talker identity” is “assumed to be stripped away so that the listener can arrive at canonical representations that underlie further linguistic analysis.” 

Lack of variation and rigidity of “talker identity” goes hand in hand with "the assumption that the end product of perception is a series of abstract, symbolic, idealized, linguistic units." This assumption is from the NVB talker’s superior point of view. These authors call it “the abstractionist's approach to speech perception.” I totally agree with them that this approach, with “its emphasis on context-free processing units, falls short of providing a satisfactory explanation for the relationship between the processing of linguistic content and the analysis of a talker’s voice," by the listener.

We must focus on how the speaker sounds, because that determines if we (talkers as well as listeners) will engage in SVB or NVB. “A separate body of research has addressed the perception and identification of talker identity, viewing the speech signal as simply a carrier of talker information.” This so-called "perception" is in reality a form of dissociation in the listener. 

During NVB, the listener has no other choice than to try to separate what is said from how it is said, so that the NVB speaker can continue to dominate and intimidate him or her. If the listener would not be doing this, he or she would be punished by the speaker for not listening or for being distracted. 

However, by connecting “talker information” with listener’s perception, that is, by joining speaking and listening behavior or by listening to ourselves while we speak, we will attain SVB. These researchers should consider it to be a NVB assumption that “talker identification and perception” must involve “a distinct set of perceptual mechanisms which operate on attributes of the acoustic speech signal that are separate and autonomous from the attributes that underlie spoken word recognition of the linguistic message.”