Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

The coding scheme for phonetic features.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

The distribution of sounds in the C1V1 of the produced words in Japanese and English.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Component loadings for the Japanese data.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Component loadings for the English data.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Summary of the mixed-effects model for Link (1): “size” and “weight”–“C1 voicing”.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 1.

Averages of object scores for individual phonetic values in Japanese.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Averages of object scores for individual phonetic values in English.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean number of synthesized scores of “size” and “weight” in “voiced” and “voiceless” consonants (Link 1).

Note: The effect of voicing was significant in Japanese (estimates = 1.62, standard error = .15, df = 2868.2, t.ratio = -10.5, p < .001), indicating that the larger negative scores (i.e., large and heavy motion) were obtained in the condition of the voiced consonants, than in that of the voiceless consonants in the Japanese data.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Mean number of “speed” in “low” vowels and the others (Link 2).

Note: the effect of low vowel was significant in Japanese (estimates = -0.44, standard error = 0.17, df = 2863.55, t.ratio = -2.6, p < .01).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Mean number of “speed” in “nasal” consonants and the others (Link 3).

Note: the effect of nasality was significant in Japanese (estimates = 0.68, standard error = 0.22, df = 2876.95, t.ratio = 3.11, p < . 01).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Mean number of synthesized scores of “speed” and “energeticity” in “voiced” and “voiceless” consonants (Link 4).

Note: the effect of the voicing was significant in Japanese (estimates = 0.59, standard error = 0.15, df = 2913.59, t.ratio = 4.01, p < .0001).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Mean number of synthesized scores of “weight” and “smoothness” in “velar”/”palatal” consonants and the others (Link 5).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 6.

Summary of the mixed-effects model for Link 2): “speed”–“V1 height”.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Summary of the mixed-effects model for Link 3): “speed”–“C1 manner”.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Summary of the mixed-effects model for Link 4): “speed” and “energeticity”–“C1 voicing”.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Summary of the mixed-effects model for Link 5): “weight” and “smoothness”–“C1 place”.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Summary of the findings.

More »

Table 10 Expand