ArticleBrain and language2019
Brain-behavior relationships in incidental learning of non-native phonetic categories.
Article in Brain and language, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining group differences in between-participant variability in non-native speech sound learning.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Trial
- Perceptual Plasticity in Bilinguals: Language Dominance Reshapes Acoustic Cue Weightings.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The effects of incidental learning and input frequency on the perception of non-native speech.Second language research · 2025Article
- Implicit and explicit learning in talker identification.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Impaired perceptual phonetic plasticity in Parkinson's disease.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Reliability and validity for perceptual flexibility in speech.Brain and language · 2022Article
- Learning nonnative speech sounds changes local encoding in the adult human cortex.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research has implicated the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) in mapping acoustic-phonetic input to sound category representations, both in native speech perception and non-native phonetic category learning. At issue is whether this sensitivity reflects access to phonetic category information per se or to explicit category labels, the latter often being required by experimental procedures. The current study employed an incidental learning paradigm designed to increase sensitivity to a difficult non-native phonetic contrast without inducing explicit awareness of the categorical nature of the stimuli. Functional MRI scans revealed frontal sensitivity to phonetic category structure both before and after learning. Additionally, individuals who succeeded most on the learning task showed the largest increases in frontal recruitment after learning. Overall, results suggest that processing novel phonetic category information entails a reliance on frontal brain regions, even in the absence of explicit category labels.
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.