Trial reportPloS one2018
Maintaining information about speech input during accent adaptation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listeners near-optimally integrate acoustic and semantic cues in spoken word recognition: Evidence from experiments manipulating cue order and reliability.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Maintenance of subcategorical information during speech perception: revisiting misunderstood limitations.Journal of memory and language · 2025Article
- 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
- Cross-talker generalization in the perception of nonnative speech: A large-scale replication.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2021Article
- Talker-specific pronunciation or speech error? Discounting (or not) atypical pronunciations during speech perception.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2019Article
- Dynamic re-weighting of acoustic and contextual cues in spoken word recognition.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Article
- Inferring causes during speech perception.Cognition · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech understanding can be thought of as inferring progressively more abstract representations from a rapidly unfolding signal. One common view of this process holds that lower-level information is discarded as soon as higher-level units have been inferred. However, there is evidence that subcategorical information about speech percepts is not immediately discarded, but is maintained past word boundaries and integrated with subsequent input. Previous evidence for such subcategorical information maintenance has come from paradigms that lack many of the demands typical to everyday language use. We ask whether information maintenance is also possible under more typical constraints, and in particular whether it can facilitate accent adaptation. In a web-based paradigm, participants listened to isolated foreign-accented words in one of three conditions: subtitles were displayed concurrently with the speech, after speech offset, or not displayed at all. The delays between speech offset and subtitle presentation were manipulated. In a subsequent test phase, participants then transcribed novel words in the same accent without the aid of subtitles. We find that subtitles facilitate accent adaptation, even when displayed with a 6 second delay. Listeners thus maintained subcategorical information for sufficiently long to allow it to benefit adaptation. We close by discussing what type of information listeners maintain-subcategorical phonetic information, or just uncertainty about speech categories.
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.