Cited by 119Phonetics and Phonology ResearchCategorization, perception, and languageNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function

Open access
Kong, Eun Jong, Edwards, Jan·2016·Journal of Phonetics

Abstract

This study examined individual differences in categorical perception and the use of multiple acoustic cues in the perception of the stop voicing contrast. Goals were to investigate whether gradiency of speech perception was related to listeners' differential sensitivity to acoustic cues and to individual differences in executive function. The experiment included two speech perception tasks (visual analogue scaling [VAS] and anticipatory eye movement [AEM]) administered to 30 English-speaking adults in two separate experimental sessions. Stimuli were a /ta/ to /da/ continuum that systematically varied VOT and f0. Findings were that some listeners had a more gradient pattern of responses on the VAS task; the listeners who had a gradient response pattern on the VAS task also showed more sensitivity to f0 on the AEM task. The patterns were consistent across individuals tested on two separate occasions. These results suggest that variability in how categorically listeners perceive speech sounds is consistent and systematic within individuals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.08.006

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Kong, E. J., & Edwards, J.
Affiliations
  • Korea Aerospace University (KR)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Kong, Eun Jong
Venue
Journal of Phonetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
59
Pages
40-57
ISSN
0095-4470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2522016266
Cited by
119
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Phonetics (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIDCD (R01 02932)
  • NSF (BCS-0729140)
  • NICHD (P30 HD03352)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
categorical perception, individual differences, cue weighting, executive function, acoustic cues, voice onset time, fundamental frequency, anticipatory eye movements, speech perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review