Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38383914›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Resolving competing predictions in speech: How qualitatively different cues and cue reliability contribute to phoneme identification.

Anne Marie Crinnion, Sahil Luthra, Phoebe Gaston, James S Magnuson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Anne Marie CrinnionUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. anne.crinnion@uconn.edu.
Sahil LuthraCarnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Phoebe GastonUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
James S MagnusonUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Funding

Training in the Cognitive Neuroscience of CommunicationT32DC017703 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Inge-Marie Eigsti, Emily B Myers · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
Mechanisms of auditory selective attention for speech and non-speech stimuliF32DC020625 · NIDCD · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI LUTHRA, SAHIL · 2022 to 2025
$197k
Understanding Individual Differences in Acoustic-Phonetic and Contextual Cue Use In AgingF31DC021372 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI CRINNION, ANNE MARIE · 2023 to 2024
$95k
NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC021372NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC020625NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Listeners have many sources of information available in interpreting speech. Numerous theoretical frameworks and paradigms have established that various constraints impact the processing of speech sounds, but it remains unclear how listeners might simultaneously consider multiple cues, especially those that differ qualitatively (i.e., with respect to timing and/or modality) or quantitatively (i.e., with respect to cue reliability). Here, we establish that cross-modal identity priming can influence the interpretation of ambiguous phonemes (Exp. 1, N = 40) and show that two qualitatively distinct cues - namely, cross-modal identity priming and auditory co-articulatory context - have additive effects on phoneme identification (Exp. 2, N = 40). However, we find no effect of quantitative variation in a cue - specifically, changes in the reliability of the priming cue did not influence phoneme identification (Exp. 3a, N = 40; Exp. 3b, N = 40). Overall, we find that qualitatively distinct cues can additively influence phoneme identification. While many existing theoretical frameworks address constraint integration to some degree, our results provide a step towards understanding how information that differs in both timing and modality is integrated in online speech perception.

Indexed as

CuesPhoneticsSpeech PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultPrimingSpeech perceptionSpoken word recognition

Identifiers

PMID38383914
PMCPMC11233028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.