ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2019
Listeners can anticipate future segments before they identify the current one.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2019. 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.
- Decoupling speech processing from time.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026Review
- The development of lexical competition in written- and spoken-word recognition.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Gradient activation of speech categories facilitates listeners' recovery from lexical garden paths, but not perception of speech-in-noise.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 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
Speech unfolds rapidly over time, and the information necessary to recognize even a single phoneme may not be available simultaneously. Consequently, listeners must both integrate prior acoustic cues and anticipate future segments. Prior work on stop consonants and vowels suggests that listeners integrate asynchronous cues by partially activating lexical entries as soon as any information is available, and then updating this when later cues arrive. However, a recent study suggests that for the voiceless sibilant fricatives (/s/ and /ʃ/), listeners wait to initiate lexical access until all cues have arrived at the onset of the vowel. Sibilants also contain coarticulatory cues that could be used to anticipate the vowel upcoming. However, given these results, it is unclear if listeners could use them fast enough to speed vowel recognition. The current study examines anticipation by asking when listeners use coarticulatory information in the frication to predict the upcoming vowel. A visual world paradigm experiment found that listeners do not wait: they anticipate the vowel immediately from the onset of the frication, even as they wait several hundred milliseconds to identify the fricative. This finding suggests listeners do not strictly process phonemes in the order that they appear; rather the dynamics of language processing may be largely internal and only loosely coupled to the dynamics of the input.
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.