CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeuroscience and Music PerceptionCategorization, perception, and language

Perceptual magnet effect in the light of behavioral and psychophysiological data

Aaltonen, Olli, Eerola, Osmo, Hellström, Åke, Uusipaikka, Esa, Lang, A. Heikki·1997·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.418031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Finnish speaking adults categorized synthetic vowels, varying in the frequency of the second formant (F2), as either /y/ or /i/. Two subject groups emerged: “good” and “poor” categorizers. In a /i/ rating experiment, only the good categorizers could consistently label their best /i/ (the prototype, P), being low in the F2 continuum. Poor categorizers rated /i/’s with high F2 values as Ps. In a same/different (AX) discrimination experiment, using the individual Ps and nonprototypes (NPs), it was more difficult for good categorizers to detect small F2 deviations from the P than from an NP (the “perceptual magnet effect”). For poor categorizers, the opposite effect was found. The same stimuli were used to record the mismatch negativity (MMN), an ERP component reflecting preattentive detection of deviations from a standard sound. For the good categorizers the MMNs were lower for Ps than for NPs; for the poor categorizers the MMNs for Ps and NPs did not differ significantly. The results show that individual listeners behaved differently in categorization and goodness rating but in the same way in attentive (AX) discrimination, being the poorest at about the same F2 location. The perceptual magnet effect was indicated in the good categorizers both by behavioral and psychophysiological (MMN) discrimination data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.418031

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 [70]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Aaltonen, O., Eerola, O., Hellström, Å., Uusipaikka, E., & Lang, A. H.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
1997-02-01
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
1090-1105
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.418031
OpenAlex
W2057706081
Cited by
122
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Turun Yliopistollinen Keskussairaala
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
perceptual magnet effect, vowel categorization, second formant frequency, synthetic vowels, prototype effects, mismatch negativity, auditory event-related potentials, same-different discrimination, vowel perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Speech, Speech Acoustics, Speech Production Measurement

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