The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations (2017) · cites this paper as 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.
Citations
Cites
Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer
(2011) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31821473f7 · Cited by 8,010
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.419 · Cited by 5,256
Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears
Cherry, E. C. (1953) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907229 · Cited by 4,774
Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues
Shannon, R., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.303 · Cited by 3,302
The TRACE model of speech perception
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 · Cited by 3,044
DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195503 · Cited by 2,804
Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks
French, R. (1999) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01294-2 · Cited by 2,311
Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 · Cited by 1,982
A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later
Greenwood, D. D. (1990) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.399052 · Cited by 1,900
Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access.
Goldinger, S. D. (1998) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.105.2.251 · Cited by 1,587
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Miller, 1981, Effects of speaking rate on segmental distinctions., 39
- Nusbaum, 1997, Talker normalization: Phonetic constancy as a cognitive process., 109
- 10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.40 · DOI
- Rodd, Neural systems for sentence comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity., Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A. A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, Ö., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S. P. Y., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., et al. (2013) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031 · Cited by 1,056
Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech
Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2007) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005 · Cited by 905
Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.705006 · Cited by 809
Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.
Kleinschmidt, D., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0038695 · Cited by 684
Neural Oscillations Carry Speech Rhythm through to Comprehension
Peelle, J. E., & Davis, M. H. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00320 · Cited by 596
Metadata
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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
