Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40866787›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Talker-specificity beyond the lexicon: Recognition memory for spoken sentences.

William Clapp, Meghan Sumner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 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

2 authors.

William ClappDepartment of Linguistics, Stanford University, Building 460, Margaret Jacks Hall 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. wsclapp@stanford.edu.
Meghan SumnerDepartment of Linguistics, Stanford University, Building 460, Margaret Jacks Hall 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.

Funding

Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Grant number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 35 years, it has been established that mental representations of language include fine-grained acoustic details stored in episodic memory. The empirical foundations of this fact were established through a series of word recognition experiments showing that participants were better at remembering words repeated by the same talker than words repeated by a different talker (talker-specificity effect). This effect has been widely replicated, but exclusively with isolated, generally monosyllabic, words as the object of study. Whether fine-grained acoustic detail plays a role in the encoding and retrieval of larger structures, such as spoken sentences, has important implications for theories of language understanding in natural communicative contexts. In this study, we extended traditional recognition memory methods to use full spoken sentences rather than individual words as stimuli. Additionally, we manipulated attention at the time of encoding in order to probe the automaticity of fine-grained acoustic encoding. Participants were more accurate for sentences repeated by the same talker than by a different talker. They were also faster and more accurate in the Full Attention than in the Divided Attention condition. The specificity effect was more pronounced for the Divided Attention than the Full Attention group. These findings provide evidence for specificity at the sentence level. They also highlight the implicit, automatic encoding of fine-grained acoustic detail and point to a central role for cognitive resource allocation in shaping memory-based language representations.

Indexed as

AcousticsAttentionLanguagePsycholinguisticsRecognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionHumansMemoryEpisodic memoryPsycholinguisticsSpeech perceptionTalker-specificity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.