ArticleBehavior research methods2021
A psycholinguistic method for measuring coarticulation in child and adult speech.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Cross-Sectional Age Group Study of Coarticulatory Resistance: The Case of Late-Acquired Voiceless Fricatives in English.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
- The Acquisition of Articulatory Timing for Liquids: Evidence From Child and Adult Speech.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A perceiver's ability to accurately predict target sounds in a forward-gated AV speech task indexes the strength and scope of anticipatory coarticulation in adult speech (Redford et al., JASA, 144, 2447-2461, 2018). This suggests a perception-based method for studying coarticulation in populations who may poorly tolerate the more invasive or restrictive techniques used to measure speech movements directly. But the use of perception to measure production begs the question of confounding influences on perceiver performance and thus on the reliability and generalizability of the proposed method. The present study was therefore designed to test whether a gated AV speech method for measuring coarticulation provides reliable results across different study populations (child versus adult), different task environments (in-lab versus online), and different coarticulatory directions (forward/anticipatory versus backward/carryover). The results indicated excellent measurement reliability across age groups in the forward/anticipatory measurement direction, though more perceivers are needed to achieve the same levels of agreement and consistency when the task is completed online. Accuracy was lower in the backward/carryover direction, and although agreement and consistency were still reasonably high across perceivers, the effect of age group differed between the laboratory and online environments, suggesting measurement error in one or both environments. Overall, the results support using in-lab or online perceptual judgments to measure anticipatory coarticulation in developmental studies of speech production. Further validation study is needed before the method can be extended to measure carryover coarticulation.
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.