ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2023
Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency.
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.
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.
- Challenges in Accommodating Talker Variability in Lexical Tone Perception Among Autistic Adults: Implications for Talker Adaptation.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Effects of Stimulus Complexity on the Phonemic Restoration Effect.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Telephone Games: How Issues With Common Citation Practices Established the Inverse Efficiency Score.Experimental psychology · 2026Review
- Multiple timescales of context influence perceptual sensitivity to common pairings of musical pitch and timbre.PloS one · 2025Article
- The effects of variability on context effects and psychometric function slopes in speaking rate normalizationa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Why are listeners hindered by talker variability?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- A model for person perception from familiar and unfamiliar voices.Communications psychology · 2023Review
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
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
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.