ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
The consistency of categorization-consistency in speech perception.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural connectivity of auditory-linguistic brain networks predicts success in speech categorization and listening in noise.Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Speech Categorization Consistency Predicts Language and Reading Abilities in Korean School-Age Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Phonetic variability leads to gradient speech perception.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2026Article
- Speech perception consistency facilitates initial lexical activation, but not speech perception flexibility.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Changes in the Structure of Speech Categorization Across School Age Years: Children Become More Gradient and More Consistent.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Consistency in phonetic categorization predicts successful speech-in-noise perception.JASA express letters · 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
Listeners generally map continuous acoustic information onto categories in a gradient manner with varying individual differences. Typically, such individual differences in speech categorization have been characterized by the mean slope of the response function, as quantified through the visual analog scaling (VAS) task. However, recent evidence suggests that categorization consistency (trial-by-trial response variability) may be a more robust predictor of real-world outcomes than the mean slope. Despite this, the extent to which these VAS indices represent reliable and stable traits relevant to speech perception remains uncertain. This study investigates the stability and trait-like nature of VAS indices by analyzing VAS responses across a diverse range of speech continua. We also examine the potential associations between differences in speech categorization and broader cognitive differences. American English-speaking adults (n = 68) completed the VAS task, alongside three questionnaires assessing autistic traits, anxiety, and impulsivity. We found that categorization consistency showed stronger correlations across continuum types than the categorization slope. Furthermore, no significant correlations were observed between the VAS indices and broader cognitive factors. These results suggest categorization consistency is a more stable property of individuals over the mean slope, and importantly, it is not an artifact due to higher cognitive factors. Thus, the extent to which listeners are consistent in their speech categorization may provide a more accurate characterization of individual differences 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.