Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732274›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2023

Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency.

Alexandra M Kapadia, Jessica A A Tin, Tyler K Perrachione

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Why are listeners hindered by talker variability?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
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

3 authors.

Alexandra M KapadiaDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Jessica A A TinDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Tyler K PerrachioneDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

Funding

CENTRAL FACTORS IN AUDITORY MASKINGR01DC004545 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KIDD, GERALD, JR · 2000 to 2021
$9.0M
Advanced Research Training in Communication Sciences and DisordersT32DC013017 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI Cara E. Stepp · 2016 to 2026
$4.9M
Neural bases of phonological working memory in developmental language disordersR03DC014045 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI PERRACHIONE, TYLER · 2015 to 2017
$491k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004545NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC014045NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC013017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phonetic variability across talkers imposes additional processing costs during speech perception, evident in performance decrements when listening to speech from multiple talkers. However, within-talker phonetic variation is a less well-understood source of variability in speech, and it is unknown how processing costs from within-talker variation compare to those from between-talker variation. Here, listeners performed a speeded word identification task in which three dimensions of variability were factorially manipulated: between-talker variability (single vs multiple talkers), within-talker variability (single vs multiple acoustically distinct recordings per word), and word-choice variability (two- vs six-word choices). All three sources of variability led to reduced speech processing efficiency. Between-talker variability affected both word-identification accuracy and response time, but within-talker variability affected only response time. Furthermore, between-talker variability, but not within-talker variability, had a greater impact when the target phonological contrasts were more similar. Together, these results suggest that natural between- and within-talker variability reflect two distinct magnitudes of common acoustic-phonetic variability: Both affect speech processing efficiency, but they appear to have qualitatively and quantitatively unique effects due to differences in their potential to obscure acoustic-phonemic correspondences across utterances.

Indexed as

SpeechSpeech PerceptionAcousticsAuditory PerceptionPhonetics

Identifiers

PMID36732274
PMCPMC9836727

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.