ArticleBrain and language2021
Idiosyncratic use of bottom-up and top-down information leads to differences in speech perception flexibility: Converging evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking.
Article in Brain and language, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural connectivity of auditory-linguistic brain networks predicts success in speech categorization and listening in noise.Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Speech Categorization Consistency Predicts Language and Reading Abilities in Korean School-Age Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Phonetic variability leads to gradient speech perception.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2026Article
- Measuring age-related differences in phonetic gradiency with the visual analogue scale and eye tracking.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026Article
- The consistency of categorization-consistency in speech perception.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Article
- From real-time measures to real world differences: New [and old] statistical approaches to individual differences in real-time language processing.Brain research · 2025Review
- Timecourse of bottom-up and top-down language processing during a picture-based semantic priming task.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2025Article
- Individual differences in the perception of phonetic category structure predict speech-in-noise performance.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- A Bayesian hierarchical model for the analysis of visual analogue scaling tasks.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024Article
- Informational masking influences segmental and suprasegmental speech categorization.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- The role of inhibitory control in spoken word recognition: Evidence from cochlear implant users.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2024Article
- Arabic consonant length perception depends on the relative speech rate of the distal context.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Individual variability in subcortical neural encoding shapes phonetic cue weighting.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The development of lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition.Developmental psychology · 2023Article
- Don't force it! Gradient speech categorization calls for continuous categorization tasks.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Review
- The myth of categorical perception.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Review
- The Slow Development of Real-Time Processing: Spoken-Word Recognition as a Crucible for New Thinking About Language Acquisition and Language Disorders.Current directions in psychological science · 2022Article
- Moving away from deficiency models: Gradiency in bilingual speech categorization.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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
Listeners generally categorize speech sounds in a gradient manner. However, recent work, using a visual analogue scaling (VAS) task, suggests that some listeners show more categorical performance, leading to less flexible cue integration and poorer recovery from misperceptions (Kapnoula et al., 2017, 2021). We asked how individual differences in speech gradiency can be reconciled with the well-established gradiency in the modal listener, showing how VAS performance relates to both Visual World Paradigm and EEG measures of gradiency. We also investigated three potential sources of these individual differences: inhibitory control; lexical inhibition; and early cue encoding. We used the N1 ERP component to track pre-categorical encoding of Voice Onset Time (VOT). The N1 linearly tracked VOT, reflecting a fundamentally gradient speech perception; however, for less gradient listeners, this linearity was disrupted near the boundary. Thus, while all listeners are gradient, they may show idiosyncratic encoding of specific cues, affecting downstream processing.
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.