Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38811489›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Individual differences in the use of top-down versus bottom-up cues to resolve phonetic ambiguity.

Anne Marie Crinnion, Christopher C Heffner, Emily B Myers

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Anne Marie CrinnionUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. anne.crinnion@uconn.edu.
Christopher C HeffnerUniversity at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Emily B MyersUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Funding

The Role of Frontal and Temporal Brain Areas in the Perception of Phonetic Category StructureR01DC013064 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI MYERS, EMILY B · 2014 to 2025
$4.3M
Training in the Cognitive Neuroscience of CommunicationT32DC017703 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Inge-Marie Eigsti, Emily B Myers · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
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
National Science Foundation DGE-1747486NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC021372NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013064NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How listeners weight a wide variety of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal is a question of interest in speech perception, particularly when understanding how listeners process speech in the context of phrases or sentences. Dominant views of cue use for language comprehension posit that listeners integrate multiple sources of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal. Here, we study how semantic context, sentence rate, and vowel length all influence identification of word-final stops. We find that while at the group level all sources of information appear to influence how listeners interpret ambiguities in speech, at the level of the individual listener, we observe systematic differences in cue reliance, such that some individual listeners favor certain cues (e.g., speech rate and vowel length) to the exclusion of others (e.g., semantic context). While listeners exhibit a range of cue preferences, across participants we find a negative relationship between individuals' weighting of semantic and acoustic-phonetic (sentence rate, vowel length) cues. Additionally, we find that these weightings are stable within individuals over a period of 1 month. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that theories of cue integration and speech processing may fail to capture the rich individual differences that exist between listeners, which could arise due to mechanistic differences between individuals in speech perception.

Indexed as

CuesIndividualityPhoneticsSemanticsSpeech PerceptionAdultComprehensionFemaleHumansMalePsycholinguisticsSpeech AcousticsYoung AdultIndividual differencesPsycholinguisticsSpeech perception

Identifiers

PMID38811489
PMCPMC11560639

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.