ArticleBrain and language2022
Reliability and validity for perceptual flexibility in speech.
Article in Brain and language, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term and long-term adaptive changes in prosodic comprehension.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2026Article
- Cents and shenshibility: The role of reward in talker-specific phonetic recalibration.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Individual differences in the use of top-down versus bottom-up cues to resolve phonetic ambiguity.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Individual Differences in Accent Imitation.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: brief assessments.Linguistics vanguard : multimodal online journal · 2023Article
- Impaired perceptual phonetic plasticity in Parkinson's disease.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study of perceptual flexibility in speech depends on a variety of tasks that feature a large degree of variability between participants. Of critical interest is whether measures are consistent within an individual or across stimulus contexts. This is particularly key for individual difference designs that aredeployed to examine the neural basis or clinical consequences of perceptual flexibility. In the present set of experiments, we assess the split-half reliability and construct validity of five measures of perceptual flexibility: three of learning in a native language context (e.g., understanding someone with a foreign accent) and two of learning in a non-native context (e.g., learning to categorize non-native speech sounds). We find that most of these tasks show an appreciable level of split-half reliability, although construct validity was sometimes weak. This provides good evidence for reliability for these tasks, while highlighting possible upper limits on expected effect sizes involving each measure.
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.