Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling
Abstract
Recent experiments have demonstrated that the category goodness of speech sounds strongly influences perception in both adults and infants [Kuhl, Percept. Psychophys. 50, 93–107 (1991); Kuhl et al., Science 255, 606–608 (1992)]. Stimuli judged as exceptionally good instances of phonetic categories (prototypes) make neighboring tokens in the vowel space seem more similar, exhibiting a perceptual magnet effect. Three experiments further examined the perceptual magnet effect in adults. Experiment 1 collected goodness and identification judgments for 13 variants of the vowel /i/. Experiment 2 used signal detection theory to assess the discrimination of these tokens using a bias-free measure (d′). Experiment 3 employed multidimensional scaling (MDS) to geometrically model the distortion of the perceptual space due to the magnet effect. The results demonstrated a strong relationship between category goodness and discrimination. Vowel tokens receiving high goodness ratings in experiment 1 were more difficult to discriminate in experiment 2 and were more tightly clustered in the MDS solutions of experiment 3. These findings support the existence of a perceptual magnet effect, and may help explain some aspects of first language learning in infants and second language learning in adults.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Native-language phonetic prototypes evoke special responses compared with nonprototypes.
“Many behavioral (63–69) and brain (70–73) studies indicate that native-language phonetic prototypes evoke special responses when compared with nonprototypes.”
From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [69]
Linguistic experience produces mental maps for speech that differ substantially for speakers of different languages.
“The results suggest that linguistic experience produces mental maps for speech that differ substantially for speakers of different languages (40, 69, 79).”
From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [69]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 352
- Authors
- Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1995-01-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 553-562
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2019129540
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 12.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p01dc000520-10)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC00520)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- perceptual magnet effect, speech perception, vowel discrimination, vowel space, perceptual similarity, signal detection theory, multidimensional scaling, first language acquisition, second language acquisition
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Phonetics, Speech Discrimination Tests, Speech Perception, Signal Detection, Psychological
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