Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41991900›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026

Contrastive adaptation in perception of speech versus song.

A T Tierney

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

A T TierneyDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. a.tierney@bbk.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior research on perception of a vocalization as speech versus song has focused on how stimulus characteristics are mapped onto the boundary between these domains. It remains an open question, therefore, whether the perception of a stimulus as speech versus song can shift based on the context surrounding a stimulus. In Experiment 1 participants rated stimuli which varied along a continuum from speech to song. These ambiguous stimuli were preceded by adaptor stimuli which were unambiguous song or speech. Stimuli preceded by a speech adaptor were rated as more song-like, while stimuli preceded by a song adaptor were rated as more speech-like. In Experiment 2, data from a previous study on transformation from speech to song with repetition were re-analyzed to examine contextual effects. After hearing a stimulus which transformed into song, participants were more likely to rate the next stimulus as sounding more speech-like compared to after hearing a stimulus which continued to sound like speech when repeated. These findings show that when listeners decide whether a stimulus is speech or song, they do not only use acoustic information but also take into account contextual information across multiple time scales, from a few seconds (Experiment 1) to around 15 s (Experiment 2). Thus, the perceptual boundary between speech and song is not fixed.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalAttentionSingingSpeech PerceptionVoice RecognitionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAdaptation and aftereffectsMusic cognitionSound recognitionSpeech perception

Identifiers

PMID41991900

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.