CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Neuroscience and Music PerceptionPhonetics and Phonology ResearchCategorization, perception, and language

Exploration of the perceptual magnet effect using the mismatch negativity auditory evoked potential

Sharma, Anu, Dorman, Michael F.·1998·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.423252
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The goals of this study were (i) to assess the replicability of the “perceptual magnet effect” [, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97(1), 553–561 (1995)] and (ii) to investigate neurophysiologic processes underlying the perceptual magnet effect by using the mismatch negativity (MMN) auditory evoked potential. A stimulus continuum from /i/ to /e/ was synthesized by varying F1 and F2 in equal mel steps. Ten adult subjects identified and rated the goodness of the stimuli. Results revealed that the prototype was the stimulus with the lowest F1 and highest F2 values and the nonprototype stimulus was close to the category boundary. Subjects discriminated stimulus pairs differing in equal mel steps. The results indicated that discrimination accuracy was not significantly different in the prototype and the nonprototype condition. That is, no perceptual magnet effect was observed. The MMN evoked potential (a preattentive, neurophysiologic index of auditory discrimination) revealed that despite equal mel differences between the stimulus pairs the MMN was largest for the prototype pair (i.e., the pair that had the lowest F1 and highest F2 values). Therefore the MMN appears to be sensitive to within category acoustic differences. Taken together, the behavioral and electrophysiologic results indicate that discrimination of stimulus pairs near a prototype is based on the auditory structure of the stimulus pairs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.423252

Cites

39 of 39 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 [71]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sharma, A., & Dorman, M. F.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
511-517
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.423252
OpenAlex
W2014239236
Cited by
34
References
39
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
perceptual magnet effect, mismatch negativity, auditory evoked potentials, vowel discrimination, Mel scale, fundamental frequency, second harmonic, prototype effects, category boundaries, auditory perception, replicability
MeSH terms
Adult, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Speech, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception, Time Factors

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