Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798 · see citing works
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005653411471 · Cited by 6,450 · see citing works
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15082-000 · Cited by 2,683 · see citing works
Noncategorical perception of stop consonants differing in VOT
Carney, A. E., Widin, G. P., & Viemeister, N. F. (1977) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.381590 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
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)
- PMC
- PMC5423668
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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