Articles

Perceptual Accuracy and Subjective Difficulty of Articulatory Error Types in Korean Alveolar Fricatives /s/ and /s* /: Evidence from Speech-Language Pathology Trainees

AUTHOR
Yun Kyung Song, Eun Kyoung Lee
INFORMATION
2026, Vol. 11, Issue 1 / pp. 69-81
e-ISSN
2508-5948
p-ISSN

ABSTRACT

Purpose This study examined the perceptual accuracy and subjective difficulty of articulatory error types in the Korean alveolar fricatives /s/ and /s*/ among speech-language pathology trainees and explored the relationship between these two measures. Methods Participants were 32 undergraduate speech-language pathology students (29 females, 3 males; mean age = 26.9 years, SD = 8.6) from two universities in Busan and Jeonnam, Korea. The stimuli consisted of 24 familiar words containing /s/ or /s*/ in word-initial or word-medial position, each combined with one of six monophthongs (excluding /i/). Each word was recorded under five conditions correct production, — plosivization, interdentalization, palatalization, and lateralization—yielding 120 stimuli. Perceptual accuracy was analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), and subjective difficulty was analyzed using linear mixed models (LMM). Results The main effect of articulatory error type was significant for both perceptual accuracy (F = 51.41, p < .001) and subjective difficulty (F = 188.30, p < .001). Perceptual accuracy was highest for correct production (.94) and plosivization (.92) and lowest for interdentalization (.54). Subjective difficulty ratings were highest for lateralization (3.16) and lowest for correct production (1.36). A discrepancy between perceptual accuracy and subjective difficulty was observed, suggesting that perceptual performance and metacognitive judgments may reflect different underlying processes. Conclusions Articulatory error type is a key factor in speech perception. These findings highlight the need for perceptual training in clinical education that addresses both identification accuracy and learners’ perceptual awareness.

Keyword
Alveolar fricatives Articulatory errors Perceptual accuracy Subjective difficulty Mixed-effects models

REFERENCES

  1. Heo SR. Accuracy comparison of Korean /s/ and /s*/ in children aged 4 to 7 years depending on the vowel environments in CV and VCV structures [master’s thesis]. Busan: Catholic University of Pusan; 2017.
  2. Cheon HJ, Lee SH. The development of Korean /s/ and /s’/ in normal children of ages 2-7 years. Commun Sci Disord. 1999;10:1-24.
  3. Heo HJ, Seong CJ. Acoustic characteristics of the Korean alveolar fricative /s/ as observed from 3-year-old and 7-year-old children with respect to vowel environments. Linguistics. 2015;72:85-112. https://doi.org/10.17290/jlsk.2015..72.85 [Crossref]
  4. Kim J, Seong C. A perceptual and acoustical study of /ㅅ/ in children's speech. Phon Speech Sci. 2018;10(3):41-8. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2018.10.3.041 [Crossref]
  5. Kim MJ, Ryu EJ, Ha JW. Developmental study of distortion errors in affricative, fricative, and liquid sounds. Commun Sci Disord. 2020;25(2):441-57. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.20730 [Crossref]
  6. Choi JN, Nam DH, Choi HS. An acoustic and aerodynamic study of Korean fricatives, affricates, and alveolar plosives. J Korean Soc Laryngol Phoniatr Logop. 2005; 16(2):152-7.
  7. Ahn M. Acoustic properties of Korean fricatives and post-fricative vowels. Stud Phon Phonol Morphol. 2015; 21(2):245-56. https://doi.org/10.17959/sppm.2015.21.2.245 [Crossref]
  8. Seo S. Auditory perceptual rating according to listener factors and acoustic characteristics of fricative distortion [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Myongji University; 2018.
  9. Kim JY, Woo ST, Ha JW. Auditory-perceptual judgment of speech-language pathologists in fricative distortion by EPG task. Commun Sci Disord. 2021;26(4):897-908. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.21852 [Crossref]
  10. Song YK. Characteristics of speech intelligibility and speech acceptability connected with interdentalized /s,s*/. Audiol Speech Res. 2018;14(4):282-91. https://doi.org/10.21848/asr.2018.14.4.282 [Crossref]
  11. Kwon MJ. Effect of ear training on speech disorder evaluation and confidence rating. J Speech Lang Hear Disord. 2019;28(1):71-6. https://doi.org/10.15724/jslhd.2019.28.1.071 [Crossref]
  12. Chodroff E, Wilson C. Acoustic-phonetic and auditory mechanisms of adaptation in the perception of sibilant fricatives. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020;82(4):2027-48. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01894-2 [Crossref] [Pubmed] [ETC]
  13. Cho S, Jongman A, Wang Y, Sereno JA. Multi-modal cross-linguistic perception of fricatives in clear speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147(4):2609-24. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001140 [Crossref] [Pubmed]
  14. Pape D, Jesus LMT, Birkholz P. Intervocalic fricative perception in European Portuguese: An articulatory synthesis study. Speech Commun. 2015;74:93-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2015.09.001 [Crossref]
  15. Babel M, McGuire G. Listener expectations and gender bias in nonsibilant fricative perception. Phonetica. 2013; 70(1-2):117-51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354644 [Crossref] [Pubmed]
  16. Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol. 1979;34(10):906-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 [Crossref] [Pubmed]