ArticleCognition2018
Inferring causes during speech perception.
Article in Cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Short-term and long-term adaptive changes in prosodic comprehension.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2026Article
- Cumulative input sensitivity predicts both attenuation and stability of lexically guided perceptual learning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Speech processing in noise and the ability to differentiate sounds by musicians and nonmusicians.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Cents and shenshibility: The role of reward in talker-specific phonetic recalibration.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Learning to recognize unfamiliar faces from fine-phonetic detail in visual speech.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Maintenance of subcategorical information during speech perception: revisiting misunderstood limitations.Journal of memory and language · 2025Article
- Conscious active inference I: A quantum model naturally implements the path integral needed for real-time planning and control.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- When Jack isn't Jacques: Simultaneous opposite language-specific speech perceptual learning in French-English bilinguals.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- From first encounters to longitudinal exposure: a repeated exposure-test paradigm for monitoring speech adaptation.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Influence of face masks on recalibration of phonetic categories.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Bad maps may not always get you lost: Lexically driven perceptual recalibration for substituted phonemes.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Computational Modeling of an Auditory Lexical Decision Experiment Using DIANA.Language and speech · 2023Article
- Perceptual learning of multiple talkers: Determinants, characteristics, and limitations.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Naturalistic speech supports distributional learning across contexts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Effects of experience on recognition of speech produced with a face mask.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Cross-talker generalization in the perception of nonnative speech: A large-scale replication.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2021Article
- A second chance for a first impression: Sensitivity to cumulative input statistics for lexically guided perceptual learning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- Boosting lexical support does not enhance lexically guided perceptual learning.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2021Article
- Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the central challenges in speech perception is the lack of invariance: talkers differ in how they map words onto the speech signal. Previous work has shown that one mechanism by which listeners overcome this variability is adaptation. However, talkers differ in how they pronounce words for a number of reasons, ranging from more permanent, characteristic factors such as having a foreign accent, to more temporary, incidental factors, such as speaking with a pen in the mouth. One challenge for listeners is that the true cause underlying atypical pronunciations is never directly known, and instead must be inferred from (often causally ambiguous) evidence. In three experiments, we investigate whether these inferences underlie speech perception, and how the speech perception system deals with uncertainty about competing causes for atypical pronunciations. We find that adaptation to atypical pronunciations is affected by whether the atypical pronunciations are seen as characteristic or incidental. Furthermore, we find that listeners are able to maintain information about previous causally ambiguous pronunciations that they experience, and use this previously experienced evidence to drive their adaptation after additional evidence has disambiguated the cause. Our findings revise previous proposals that causally ambiguous evidence is ignored during speech adaptation.
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.