Cited by 0Phonetics and Phonology ResearchLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionLinguistic Variation and Morphology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Information Structural Expectations in the Perception of Prosodically Modulated Cues: Testing Vowel Duration as a Cue to Coda Obstruent Voicing in American English

Open access
Steffman, Jeremy, Chow, Carrie·2026·Language and Speech

Abstract

This study examines how expectations for prosodic prominence, as related to information structure, influence speech perception in line with how segmental cues are modulated by prosodic prominence in so-called “prominence strengthening” in production. Following the general methodology of a previous study, which elicited listeners’ explicit judgements of prominence, listeners heard target sentences that were preceded by contexts that set up the critical utterance-final word to be relatively prominent or not, based on the information-structural relation it held with the preceding context. We first replicated that listeners shift explicit prominence ratings (of identical speech stimuli) on the basis of preceding context. We then show that these effects translate to the perception of vowel duration as a cue to voicing: listeners appear to effectively compensate for expected vowel lengthening under prominence, in line with previous studies that have sought to manipulate prosodic prominence within the speech signal itself. Finally, we find that explicit judgements for length are influenced by actual/veridical vowel duration, but not by preceding context. Results are discussed in terms of how they inform our understanding of prosody, and more specifically prominence, in speech perception.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00238309261461547

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. 10.1017/S1366728903001056 · DOI
  2. 10.1121/1.4919317 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/1469-7610.00715 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1515/9783110261790.119 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.05.004 · DOI
  6. 10.1515/9783110261790.239 · DOI
  7. Bishop J. (2016). Individual differences in top-down and bottom-up prominence perception. In Proceedings of speech prosody 2016 (pp. 668–672). https://www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2016/bishop16_speechprosody.pdf · DOI
  8. 10.1101/2020.07.13.200543 · DOI
  9. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01063 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.002 · DOI
  11. 10.2466/pms.1988.67.1.301 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/xlm0001524 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.001 · DOI
  14. 10.18637/jss.v080.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1159/000259312 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00043-3 · DOI
  17. 10.1121/1.1861893 · DOI
  18. Cho T. (2016). Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics–prosody interface. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(3) 120–141. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12178/abstract · DOI
  19. Cho T. McQueen J. M. Cox E. A. (2007). Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 35(2) 210–243. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447006000167 · DOI
  20. Chodroff E. R. Cole J. (2019). The phonological and phonetic encoding of information status in American English nuclear accents. In Proceedings of the 19th international congress of phonetic sciences. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/153338/1/ChodroffCole_ICPhS19_NuclearAccents_2019.pdf
  21. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.001 · DOI
  22. 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121524 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.wocn.2019.05.002 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004 · DOI
  25. 10.1121/1.3508678 · DOI
  26. 10.1121/1.383939 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.81 · DOI
  28. 10.1121/1.412275 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.002 · DOI
  30. 10.1159/000066067 · DOI
  31. 10.1017/S0025100314000206 · DOI
  32. 10.1002/sim.3107 · DOI
  33. 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-15-0044 · DOI
  34. Ito K. Speer S. R. Beckman M. E. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. In: Proceedings of speech prosody 2004 (Vol. 4). https://www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2004/ito04b_speechprosody.pdf · DOI
  35. 10.1353/lan.2011.0076 · DOI
  36. Keating P., Cho T., Fougeron C., Hsu C.-S. (2004). Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Phonetic Interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology, VI, 143–161.
  37. 10.16995/labphon.9316 · DOI
  38. Kim S. Cho T. (2013). Prosodic boundary information modulates phonetic categorization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(1) EL19–EL25. http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/1/10.1121/1.4807431 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.004 · DOI
  40. 10.1371/journal.pone.0202912 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/0023830917729840 · DOI
  42. 10.1121/1.2133436 · DOI
  43. Krifka M. (2006). Association with focus phrases. The Architecture of Focus, 82, 105–135.
  44. Ladd D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.
  45. Lenth R. Singmann H. Love J. Buerkner P. Herve M. (2018). emmeans: Estimated marginal means aka least-squares means. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans · DOI
  46. 10.1162/jocn_a_02129 · DOI
  47. 10.1037/xlm0000579 · DOI
  48. 10.1037/xhp0000838 · DOI
  49. 10.1037/a0022325 · DOI
  50. McQueen J. M., Dilley L. (2020). Prosody and spoken-word recognition. In Gussenhhoven C., Chen A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (pp. 509–521). Oxford University Press.
  51. 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.09.002 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104034 · DOI
  53. 10.1177/0023830920974401 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101297 · DOI
  55. 10.3758/s13414-016-1067-x · DOI
  56. Roessig S., Mücke D., Pagel L. (2019). Dimensions of prosodic prominence in an attractor model. Proceedings of the Interspeech, 2019, 2533–2537.
  57. 10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101174 · DOI
  58. 10.1080/23273798.2020.1779324 · DOI
  59. 10.1007/BF02342617 · DOI
  60. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.420 · DOI
  61. Steffman J. (2020). Prosodic prominence in vowel perception and spoken language processing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California Los Angeles.
  62. 10.1121/1.5126107 · DOI
  63. 10.1121/10.0007222 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101156 · DOI
  65. 10.1121/10.0021300 · DOI
  66. 10.3389/frai.2020.00038 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.004 · DOI
  68. 10.1121/1.414995 · DOI
  69. 10.1177/0023830916647079 · DOI
  70. 10.1121/10.0000692 · DOI
  71. 10.3758/s13414-025-03123-5 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Steffman, J., & Chow, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Steffman, Jeremy
Venue
Language and Speech
Published
2026-07-12
Pages
238309261461547-238309261461547
ISSN
  • 0023-8309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-6053
OpenAlex
W7168090791
Cited by
0
References
2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language and Speech (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
prosodic prominence, information structure, vowel duration, vowel lengthening, speech perception, American English, context effects

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