Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40214936›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Cents and shenshibility: The role of reward in talker-specific phonetic recalibration.

Hannah Mechtenberg, Shawn N Cummings, Emily B Myers, Sahil Luthra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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. Listeners do not tune in to more rewarding voices.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    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.

Hannah Mechtenberg *Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. hannah.mechtenberg@uconn.edu.
Shawn N Cummings *Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Emily B MyersDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Sahil LuthraDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To what degree might speech perception be affected by factors external to the speech signal? Here, we consider whether listeners consider the value of individual talkers (e.g., a person that is important to the listener versus a passing stranger) when learning the idiosyncrasies of their speech, perhaps by directing their attention to the more "valuable" talker. In general, talker-specific phonetic recalibration has proven to be remarkably robust, leaving open how permeable it is to domain-general influences like attention and reward. The current study asked whether the magnitude of the talker-specific learning effect was modulated by an external reward intended to bias listeners to prioritize one talker over the other. Using an established paradigm, participants learned idiosyncratic pronunciations of the /s/ and /ʃ/ fricatives by two talkers-"Jane" and "Austin." Over multiple experiments, participants were more likely to receive a few additional cents for one talker compared with the other following correct responses during exposure. We hypothesized that participants would show greater phonetic recalibration to the high-reward talker compared with the low-reward talker. Our results showed that participants did not show a difference in the degree of learning based on the value of each talker, suggesting that lexically guided perceptual learning is robust to external rewards. This finding opens discussions into the role of reward and attention in talker-specific phonetic recalibration, and how domain-general factors influence speech perception more broadly.

Indexed as

AttentionLearningPhoneticsRewardSpeech PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40214936
PMCPMC12864238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.