ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
The effects of variability on context effects and psychometric function slopes in speaking rate normalizationa).
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expertise provides resilience to sound source variability in music perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Speaking rate normalization with and without spatial segregation of simultaneous context sentences.JASA express letters · 2026Article
- Independence of spectral contrast effects across different frequency regions in speech perceptiona).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026Article
- Is rate-dependent perception affected by linguistic information about the intended syllable rate?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Acoustic context influences speech perception, but contextual variability restricts this influence. Assgari and Stilp [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 3023-3032 (2015)] demonstrated that when categorizing vowels, variability in who spoke the preceding context sentence on each trial but not the sentence contents diminished the resulting spectral contrast effects (perceptual shifts in categorization stemming from spectral differences between sounds). Yet, how such contextual variability affects temporal contrast effects (TCEs) (also known as speaking rate normalization; categorization shifts stemming from temporal differences) is unknown. Here, stimuli were the same context sentences and conditions (one talker saying one sentence, one talker saying 200 sentences, 200 talkers saying 200 sentences) used in Assgari and Stilp [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 3023-3032 (2015)], but set to fast or slow speaking rates to encourage perception of target words as "tier" or "deer," respectively. In Experiment 1, sentence variability and talker variability each diminished TCE magnitudes; talker variability also produced shallower psychometric function slopes. In Experiment 2, when speaking rates were matched across the 200-sentences conditions, neither TCE magnitudes nor slopes differed across conditions. In Experiment 3, matching slow and fast rates across all conditions failed to produce equal TCEs and slopes everywhere. Results suggest a complex interplay between acoustic, talker, and sentence variability in shaping TCEs in speech perception.
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.