ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
What you hear first, is what you get: Initial metrical cue presentation modulates syllable detection in sentence processing.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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.
- Rhythm Processing Across Development: Origins, Links to Language Processing, and Perspectives for Intervention.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Review
- Testing differential effects of periodicity and predictability in auditory rhythmic cueing of concurrent speech.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auditory rhythms create powerful expectations for the listener. Rhythmic cues with the same temporal structure as subsequent sentences enhance processing compared with irregular or mismatched cues. In the present study, we focus on syllable detection following matched rhythmic cues. Cues were aligned with subsequent sentences at the syllable (low-level cue) or the accented syllable (high-level cue) level. A different group of participants performed the task without cues to provide a baseline. We hypothesized that unaccented syllable detection would be faster after low-level cues, and accented syllable detection would be faster after high-level cues. There was no difference in syllable detection depending on whether the sentence was preceded by a high-level or low-level cue. However, the results revealed a priming effect of the cue that participants heard first. Participants who heard a high-level cue first were faster to detect accented than unaccented syllables, and faster to detect accented syllables than participants who heard a low-level cue first. The low-level-first participants showed no difference between detection of accented and unaccented syllables. The baseline experiment confirmed that hearing a low-level cue first removed the benefit of the high-level grouping structure for accented syllables. These results suggest that the initially perceived rhythmic structure influenced subsequent cue perception and its influence on syllable detection. Results are discussed in terms of dynamic attending, temporal context effects, and implications for context effects in neural entrainment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33709327What 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.