ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022
Distinct mechanisms for talker adaptation operate in parallel on different timescales.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Sequence effects during speech perception reveal multi-accent processing costs.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Working memory supports rapid talker and accent accommodation: An individual differences investigation.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Independence of spectral contrast effects across different frequency regions in speech perceptiona).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026Article
- Multiple talker processing in autistic adult listeners.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Implicit and explicit learning in talker identification.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mapping between speech acoustics and phonemic representations is highly variable across talkers, and listeners are slower to recognize words when listening to multiple talkers compared with a single talker. Listeners' speech processing efficiency in mixed-talker settings improves when given time to reorient their attention to each new talker. However, it remains unknown how much time is needed to fully reorient attention to a new talker in mixed-talker settings so that speech processing becomes as efficient as when listening to a single talker. In this study, we examined how speech processing efficiency improves in mixed-talker settings as a function of the duration of continuous speech from a talker. In single-talker and mixed-talker conditions, listeners identified target words either in isolation or preceded by a carrier vowel of parametrically varying durations from 300 to 1,500 ms. Listeners' word identification was significantly slower in every mixed-talker condition compared with the corresponding single-talker condition. The costs associated with processing mixed-talker speech declined significantly as the duration of the speech carrier increased from 0 to 600 ms. However, increasing the carrier duration beyond 600 ms did not achieve further reduction in talker variability-related processing costs. These results suggest that two parallel mechanisms support processing talker variability: A stimulus-driven mechanism that operates on short timescales to reorient attention to new auditory sources, and a top-down mechanism that operates over longer timescales to allocate the cognitive resources needed to accommodate uncertainty in acoustic-phonemic correspondences during contexts where speech may come from multiple talkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34731443What 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.