Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366747›Full record

ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2022

Is Phonology Embodied? Evidence from Mechanical Stimulation.

Iris Berent, Melanie Platt

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iris BerentDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. i.berent@northeastern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-7702
Melanie PlattDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Northeastern University · US

Funding

Directorate for Biological Sciences 1733984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across languages, certain syllables are systematically preferred to others (e.g., plaf > ptaf). Here, we examine whether these preferences arise from motor simulation. In the simulation account, ill-formed syllables (e.g., ptaf) are disliked because their motor plans are harder to simulate. Four experiments compared sensitivity to the syllable structure of labial- vs. corona-initial speech stimuli (e.g., plaf > pnaf > ptaf vs. traf > tmaf > tpaf); meanwhile, participants (English vs. Russian speakers) lightly bit on their lips or tongues. Results suggested that the perception of these stimuli was selectively modulated by motor stimulation (e.g., stimulating the tongue differentially affected sensitivity to labial vs. coronal stimuli). Remarkably, stimulation did not affect sensitivity to syllable structure. This dissociation suggests that some (e.g., phonetic) aspects of speech perception are reliant on motor simulation, hence, embodied; others (e.g., phonology), however, are possibly abstract. These conclusions speak to the role of embodiment in the language system, and the separation between phonology and phonetics, specifically.

Indexed as

PhoneticsSpeech PerceptionComputer SimulationHumansLanguageSpeechAbstractionEmbodimentMotor simulationPhonologySonoritySpeech perceptionSyllable structure

Identifiers

PMID35366747
PMCPMC8976511
OpenAlexW4225678066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.