Method

Method Subjects

  • Participants: 16 Australian English-speaking adults and 16 Chinese Mandarin-speaking adults.
    • Age range: 18-35 years.
    • None of the English speakers had knowledge of Mandarin or tone languages.
    • Recruited online, with some participants receiving course credit.
    • All participants reported normal hearing abilities.
    • Study approved by the Western Sydney University Ethics Committee (H11383) and complied with ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.

Stimuli

  • Recording: Stimuli recorded by a native male Mandarin speaker.
  • Syllables: 12 CV, CVV, and CVVC syllables such as /tou/, /bou/, /ɕye/, /pye/, /pian/, /fian/, /jy/, /ty/, /bi/, /gi/, /gua/, /lua/.
  • Tones: Two Mandarin tones (T2, T3).
  • Lengths: Different stimulus lengths (500 ms, 1000 ms, 1500 ms, and 2000 ms).
  • Final Stimulus Set: 24 different stimuli formulated as:
    • 2 tones (T2, T3)
    • 3 numbers of syllables (1, 2, 4)
    • 4 length sets (400 ms, 1000 ms, 1500 ms, 2000 ms)
  • Phonotactic Structures: All stimuli had legal phonotactic structures and were non-meaningful words.
  • Variability: At least five productions per stimulus to create acoustic variability, selected based on representativeness.
  • Acoustic Analysis: Conducted using PRAAT software to analyze pitch patterns and other acoustic parameters.
  • All stimuli normalized in intensity (70 dB) and duration (500 ms).

Procedure

  • Both language groups performed an AXB discrimination task programmed in Labvanced.
  • Environment: Online, in a reported quiet place; participants wore headphones.
  • Familiarization Trials: Included two practice trials.
  • Response Method: Participants indicated similarities via keypress (key 1 for first, key 3 for third syllables), aiming for quick and accurate responses.
  • Test Phase: Followed practice, with A and B sounds differing in tone but similar in syllable count and duration. The X sound was also tone-differentiated but maintained same syllable and duration.
  • Order Counterbalancing: Four order types included: AAB, ABB, BAA, and BBA.
  • Timing:
    • Interstimulus interval: 1000 ms
    • Intertrial interval: 3000 ms
    • Response time-out: 2500 ms (measured after third syllable).
  • Trials randomized, with pauses added at 25%, 50%, and 75% of trials.

Results

  • Analysis utilized a one-predictor logistic model to examine participants’ perceptual acuity related to language background.
  • Data coding: 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct) for trial outcomes; 0 (Chinese) or 1 (English) for language background.
  • Statistical Analysis Tools: SPSS (version 24).
  • Findings:
    • Model: Predicted logit of accuracy = 0.379 + (−0.421) * language background.
    • Notable relationship: the odds of correct tone perception are lower for Australian English speakers (p = .041).
    • Australian English speakers had about two-thirds the odds of correctly perceiving tone contrasts compared to Chinese Mandarin speakers (eβ = 0.656).
    • One-sample t-tests confirmed that:
    • Australian group performance did not exceed chance (t = -0.288, p = .774).
    • Chinese group performance significantly above chance (t = 2.638, p = .009).
  • Results Visualization:
    • Figure 1 shows the proportion of correct responses between English and Mandarin listeners.
    • Performance at 0.5 indicates chance level with error bars representing one standard error of performance observed between subjects.