Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37580454›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Why are listeners hindered by talker variability?

Sahil Luthra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Listeners do not tune in to more rewarding voices.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

1 author.

Sahil LuthraDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. sahilluthra@cmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3517-2609

Funding

Mechanisms of auditory selective attention for speech and non-speech stimuliF32DC020625 · NIDCD · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI LUTHRA, SAHIL · 2022 to 2025
$197k
National Science Foundation Graduate Research FellowshipNIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC020625NIH HHS NRSA 1F32DC020625-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Though listeners readily recognize speech from a variety of talkers, accommodating talker variability comes at a cost: Myriad studies have shown that listeners are slower to recognize a spoken word when there is talker variability compared with when talker is held constant. This review focuses on two possible theoretical mechanisms for the emergence of these processing penalties. One view is that multitalker processing costs arise through a resource-demanding talker accommodation process, wherein listeners compare sensory representations against hypothesized perceptual candidates and error signals are used to adjust the acoustic-to-phonetic mapping (an active control process known as contextual tuning). An alternative proposal is that these processing costs arise because talker changes involve salient stimulus-level discontinuities that disrupt auditory attention. Some recent data suggest that multitalker processing costs may be driven by both mechanisms operating over different time scales. Fully evaluating this claim requires a foundational understanding of both talker accommodation and auditory streaming; this article provides a primer on each literature and also reviews several studies that have observed multitalker processing costs. The review closes by underscoring a need for comprehensive theories of speech perception that better integrate auditory attention and by highlighting important considerations for future research in this area.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAttentionHumansPhoneticsSpeechAttentionAuditory streamingNormalizationSpeech perceptionTalker variability

Identifiers

PMID37580454
PMCPMC10864679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.