ArticlePloS one2024
Compensation for coarticulation despite a midway speaker change: Reassessing effects and implications.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accounts of speech perception disagree on how listeners demonstrate perceptual constancy despite considerable variation in the speech signal due to speakers' coarticulation. According to the spectral contrast account, listeners' compensation for coarticulation (CfC) results from listeners perceiving the target-segment frequencies differently depending on the contrastive effects exerted by the preceding sound's frequencies. In this study, we reexamine a notable finding that listeners apparently demonstrate perceptual adjustments to coarticulation even when the identity of the speaker (i.e., the "source") changes midway between speech segments. We evaluated these apparent across-talker CfC effects on the rationale that such adjustments to coarticulation would likely be maladaptive for perceiving speech in multi-talker settings. In addition, we evaluated whether such cross-talker adaptations, if detected, were modulated by prior experience. We did so by manipulating the exposure phase of three groups of listeners by (a) merely exposing them to our stimuli (b) explicitly alerting them to talker change or (c) implicitly alerting them to this change. All groups then completed identical test blocks in which we assessed their CfC patterns in within- and across-talker conditions. Our results uniformly demonstrated that, while all three groups showed robust CfC shifts in the within-talker conditions, no such shifts were detected in the across-talker condition. Our results call into question a speaker-neutral explanation for CfC. Broadly, this demonstrates the need to carefully examine the perceptual demands placed on listeners in constrained experimental tasks and to evaluate whether the accounts that derive from such settings scale up to the demands of real-world listening.
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.