ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Automatic imitation of speech is enhanced for non-native sounds.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic imitation of vocal actions is unaffected by group membership.Psychological research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulation accounts of speech perception posit that speech is covertly imitated to support perception in a top-down manner. Behaviourally, covert imitation is measured through the stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) task. In each trial of a speech SRC task, participants produce a target speech sound whilst perceiving a speech distractor that either matches the target (compatible condition) or does not (incompatible condition). The degree to which the distractor is covertly imitated is captured by the automatic imitation effect, computed as the difference in response times (RTs) between compatible and incompatible trials. Simulation accounts disagree on whether covert imitation is enhanced when speech perception is challenging or instead when the speech signal is most familiar to the speaker. To test these accounts, we conducted three experiments in which participants completed SRC tasks with native and non-native sounds. Experiment 1 uncovered larger automatic imitation effects in an SRC task with non-native sounds than with native sounds. Experiment 2 replicated the finding online, demonstrating its robustness and the applicability of speech SRC tasks online. Experiment 3 intermixed native and non-native sounds within a single SRC task to disentangle effects of perceiving non-native sounds from confounding effects of producing non-native speech actions. This last experiment confirmed that automatic imitation is enhanced for non-native speech distractors, supporting a compensatory function of covert imitation in speech perception. The experiment also uncovered a separate effect of producing non-native speech actions on enhancing automatic imitation effects.
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.