@article{BollAvetisyanBhataraHoehle2017,
  author    = {Boll-Avetisyan, Natalie and Bhatara, Anjali and H{\"o}hle, Barbara},
  title     = {Effects of musicality on the perception of rhythmic structure in speech},
  series = {Laboratory phonology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Laboratory phonology},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Ubiquity Press},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1868-6346},
  doi       = {10.5334/labphon.91},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Language and music share many rhythmic properties, such as variations in intensity and duration leading to repeating patterns. Perception of rhythmic properties may rely on cognitive networks that are shared between the two domains. If so, then variability in speech rhythm perception may relate to individual differences in musicality. To examine this possibility, the present study focuses on rhythmic grouping, which is assumed to be guided by a domain-general principle, the Iambic/Trochaic law, stating that sounds alternating in intensity are grouped as strong-weak, and sounds alternating in duration are grouped as weak-strong. German listeners completed a grouping task: They heard streams of syllables alternating in intensity, duration, or neither, and had to indicate whether they perceived a strong-weak or weak-strong pattern. Moreover, their music perception abilities were measured, and they filled out a questionnaire reporting their productive musical experience. Results showed that better musical rhythm perception - ability was associated with more consistent rhythmic grouping of speech, while melody perception - ability and productive musical experience were not. This suggests shared cognitive procedures in the perception of rhythm in music and speech. Also, the results highlight the relevance of - considering individual differences in musicality when aiming to explain variability in prosody perception.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PetroneTruckenbrodtWellmannetal.2017,
  author    = {Petrone, Caterina and Truckenbrodt, Hubert and Wellmann, Caroline and Holzgrefe-Lang, Julia and Wartenburger, Isabell and H{\"o}hle, Barbara},
  title     = {Prosodic boundary cues in German},
  series = {Journal of phonetics},
  volume    = {61},
  journal   = {Journal of phonetics},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0095-4470},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.wocn.2017.01.002},
  pages     = {71 -- 92},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This study investigates prosodic phrasing of bracketed lists in German. We analyze variation in pauses, phrase-final lengthening and f0 in speech production and how these cues affect boundary perception. In line with the literature, it was found that pauses are often used to signal intonation phrase boundaries, while final lengthening and f0 are employed across different levels of the prosodic hierarchy. Deviations from expectations based on the standard syntax-prosody mapping are interpreted in terms of task-specific effects. That is, we argue that speakers add/delete prosodic boundaries to enhance the phonological contrast between different bracketings in the experimental task. In perception, three experiments were run, in which we tested only single cues (but temporally distributed at different locations of the sentences). Results from identification tasks and reaction time measurements indicate that pauses lead to a more abrupt shift in listeners׳ prosodic judgments, while f0 and final lengthening are exploited in a more gradient manner. Hence, pauses, final lengthening and f0 have an impact on boundary perception, though listeners show different sensitivity to the three acoustic cues.},
  language  = {en}
}