ArticlePeerJ2015
Classifying acoustic signals into phoneme categories: average and dyslexic readers make use of complex dynamical patterns and multifractal scaling properties of the speech signal.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multifractal test for nonlinearity of interactions across scales in time series.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Perceiving and remembering speech depend on multifractal nonlinearity in movements producing and exploring speech.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- Complexity in psychological self-ratings: implications for research and practice.BMC medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several competing aetiologies of developmental dyslexia suggest that the problems with acquiring literacy skills are causally entailed by low-level auditory and/or speech perception processes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diverging claims about the specific deficient peceptual processes under conditions of strong inference. Theoretically relevant acoustic features were extracted from a set of artificial speech stimuli that lie on a /bAk/-/dAk/ continuum. The features were tested on their ability to enable a simple classifier (Quadratic Discriminant Analysis) to reproduce the observed classification performance of average and dyslexic readers in a speech perception experiment. The 'classical' features examined were based on component process accounts of developmental dyslexia such as the supposed deficit in Envelope Rise Time detection and the deficit in the detection of rapid changes in the distribution of energy in the frequency spectrum (formant transitions). Studies examining these temporal processing deficit hypotheses do not employ measures that quantify the temporal dynamics of stimuli. It is shown that measures based on quantification of the dynamics of complex, interaction-dominant systems (Recurrence Quantification Analysis and the multifractal spectrum) enable QDA to classify the stimuli almost identically as observed in dyslexic and average reading participants. It seems unlikely that participants used any of the features that are traditionally associated with accounts of (impaired) speech perception. The nature of the variables quantifying the temporal dynamics of the speech stimuli imply that the classification of speech stimuli cannot be regarded as a linear aggregate of component processes that each parse the acoustic signal independent of one another, as is assumed by the 'classical' aetiologies of developmental dyslexia. It is suggested that the results imply that the differences in speech perception performance between average and dyslexic readers represent a scaled continuum rather than being caused by a specific deficient component.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.