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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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
Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?
Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009 · Cited by 805
Ordinal Regression Models in Psychology: A Tutorial
Bürkner, P.-C., & Vuorre, M. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245918823199 · Cited by 689
Research works printed but not linked: 71
- 10.1017/S1366728903001056 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.4919317 · DOI
- 10.1111/1469-7610.00715 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/9783110261790.119 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.05.004 · DOI
- 10.1515/9783110261790.239 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1101/2020.07.13.200543 · DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01063 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.002 · DOI
- 10.2466/pms.1988.67.1.301 · DOI
- 10.1037/xlm0001524 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.001 · DOI
- 10.18637/jss.v080.i01 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159/000259312 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00043-3 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.1861893 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.001 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121524 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2019.05.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.3508678 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.383939 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.81 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.412275 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.002 · DOI
- 10.1159/000066067 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0025100314000206 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.3107 · DOI
- 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-15-0044 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1353/lan.2011.0076 · DOI
- 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.
- 10.16995/labphon.9316 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.004 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0202912 · DOI
- 10.1177/0023830917729840 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.2133436 · DOI
- Krifka M. (2006). Association with focus phrases. The Architecture of Focus, 82, 105–135.
- Ladd D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.
- 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
- 10.1162/jocn_a_02129 · DOI
- 10.1037/xlm0000579 · DOI
- 10.1037/xhp0000838 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0022325 · DOI
- 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.
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104034 · DOI
- 10.1177/0023830920974401 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101297 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13414-016-1067-x · DOI
- Roessig S., Mücke D., Pagel L. (2019). Dimensions of prosodic prominence in an attractor model. Proceedings of the Interspeech, 2019, 2533–2537.
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101174 · DOI
- 10.1080/23273798.2020.1779324 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02342617 · DOI
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.420 · DOI
- Steffman J. (2020). Prosodic prominence in vowel perception and spoken language processing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California Los Angeles.
- 10.1121/1.5126107 · DOI
- 10.1121/10.0007222 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101156 · DOI
- 10.1121/10.0021300 · DOI
- 10.3389/frai.2020.00038 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.004 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.414995 · DOI
- 10.1177/0023830916647079 · DOI
- 10.1121/10.0000692 · DOI
- 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
- ORCID
- Steffman, Jeremy
- Venue
- Language and Speech
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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