Cited by 531Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismTactile and Sensory Interactions

Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences

Open access
Davis, Matthew H., Johnsrude, Ingrid S., Hervais-Adelman, Alexis, Taylor, Karen, McGettigan, Carolyn·2005·Journal of Experimental Psychology General

Abstract

Speech comprehension is resistant to acoustic distortion in the input, reflecting listeners' ability to adjust perceptual processes to match the speech input. For noise-vocoded sentences, a manipulation that removes spectral detail from speech, listeners' reporting improved from near 0% to 70% correct over 30 sentences (Experiment 1). Learning was enhanced if listeners heard distorted sentences while they knew the identity of the undistorted target (Experiments 2 and 3). Learning was absent when listeners were trained with nonword sentences (Experiments 4 and 5), although the meaning of the training sentences did not affect learning (Experiment 5). Perceptual learning of noise-vocoded speech depends on higher level information, consistent with top-down, lexically driven learning. Similar processes may facilitate comprehension of speech in an unfamiliar accent or following cochlear implantation.

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 · 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.222

Cites

104 of 104 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This combination of distorted auditory presentation and clear written feedback has previously been used to demonstrate effective intelligibility training effects on similar degraded stimuli.

    “This combination of distorted auditory presentation and clear written feedback has previously been used to demonstrate effective intelligibility training effects on similar degraded stimuli (Davis et al., 2005).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Norris, D. (1993). Bottom-up connectionist models of "interaction." In G. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of language pro- cesses: Second Sperlonga Meeting (pp. 211-234). Hove, United King- dom: Erlbaum.
  2. Rodd, J., Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (in press). Neural systems for sentence comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex.
  3. Weill, S. A. (2001). Foreign accented speech: Adaptation and generali- zation. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Taylor, K., & McGettigan, C.
Affiliations
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology General
Published
2005
Volume
134
Issue
2
Pages
222-241
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2059217179
Cited by
531
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 35
FWCI
15.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
perceptual learning, noise-vocoded speech, speech understanding, lexical data, top-down processing, acoustic distortion, nonword learning, unfamiliar accents, cochlear implantation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Noise, Perception, Sound Spectrography, Speech Perception, Vocabulary

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