CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,331Phonetics and Phonology ResearchCategorization, perception, and languageLanguage Development and Disorders

Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not

Open access
Kuhl, Patricia K.·1991·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03212211
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many perceptual categories exhibit internal structure in which category prototypes play an important role. In the four experiments reported here, the internal structure of phonetic categories was explored in studies involving adults, infants, and monkeys. In Experiment 1, adults rated the category goodness of 64 variants of the vowel i parallel on a scale from 1 to 7. The results showed that there was a certain location in vowel space where listeners rated the i parallel vowels as best instances, or prototypes. The perceived goodness of i parallel vowels declined systematically as stimuli were further removed from the prototypic i parallel vowel. Experiment 2 went beyond this initial demonstration and examined the effect of speech prototypes on perception. Either the prototypic or a nonprototypic i parallel vowels was used as the referent stimulus and adults' generalization to other members of the category was examined. Results showed that the typicality of the speech stimulus strongly affected perception. When the prototype of the category served as the referent vowel, there was significantly greater generalization to other i parallel vowels, relative to the situation in which the nonprototype served as the referent. The notion of a perceptual magnet was introduced. The prototype of the category functioned like a perceptual magnet for other category members; it assimilated neighboring stimuli, effectively pulling them toward the prototype. In Experiment 3, the ontogenetic origins of the perceptual magnet effect were explored by testing 6-month-old infants. The results showed that infants' perception of vowels was also strongly affected by speech prototypes. Infants showed significantly greater generalization when the prototype of the vowel category served as the referent; moreover, their responses were highly correlated with those of adults. In Experiment 4, Rhesus monkeys were tested to examine whether or not the prototype's magnet effect was unique to humans. The animals did not provide any evidence of speech prototypes; they did not exhibit the magnet effect. It is suggested that the internal organization of phonetic categories around prototypic members is an ontogenetically early, species-specific, aspect of the speech code.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Kuhl (1991) reports four experiments showing that phonetic categories are internally structured around prototypes: adults and 6-month-old infants generalize more broadly from a prototypic /i/ vowel than from a nonprototypic /i/, while Rhesus monkeys do not. The prototype is described as acting like a “perceptual magnet,” and the effect is argued to be an early, species-specific aspect of the speech code.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, 16 adults rated 64 variants of /i/ on a 1–7 goodness scale; the prototype received an average rating of 6.7 and the nonprototype 2.0, with ratings declining systematically with distance from the prototype.
  • In Experiment 2, adults discriminated within-category variants better in the nonprototype condition (90.5% correct) than in the prototype condition (78.6% correct) [t(14)=6.89, p<.001], and generalization scores were higher at every distance when the prototype was the referent (e.g., O1: 28.3% vs. 5.8%).
  • In Experiment 3, 6-month-old infants showed the same pattern: nonprototype discrimination was more accurate (73.2%) than prototype discrimination (61.7%) [t(30)=3.87, p<.001], and prototype-condition generalization was higher at each distance; adult goodness ratings correlated with adult generalization (rs=0.88), infant generalization (rs=0.86), and adult–infant generalization correlated at rs=0.82.
  • In Experiment 4, six Rhesus monkeys showed no prototype effect: overall percent-correct was 69.2% in the prototype condition and 71.5% in the nonprototype condition [t(10)=−0.908, p>.40], and condition and condition×distance effects were not significant (ps>.20).

Methods

  • Four experiments used the same synthetic /i/ stimuli: a prototype and nonprototype vowel, each surrounded by 32 variants on four mel-scaled orbits at 30, 60, 90, and 120 mels.
  • Experiment 1 had 16 adults rate category goodness; Experiment 2 had 16 adults perform a discrimination/generalization task with either the prototype or nonprototype as referent; Experiment 3 tested 32 normal full-term 6-month-olds (16 per condition, with 13 eliminated) using a head-turn conditioning procedure; Experiment 4 tested six male juvenile Rhesus macaques using a key-release task with applesauce reinforcement.
  • Main analyses were ANOVAs on goodness ratings, percent-correct discrimination, and generalization scores, plus t tests and Spearman rank correlations between adult ratings and adult/infant generalization.

Limitations

  • Stated: the paper says it does not decide the specific form of speech representations (e.g., averages, ideals, or instances), and it notes that the cross-language test of whether the magnet effect depends on linguistic experience was still preliminary.
  • Evident: the experiments use only one vowel category (/i/), relatively small samples (16 adults per adult experiment; 6 monkeys), and infant attrition was substantial (13 of 32 infants eliminated).
  • Evident: monkeys were tested in both conditions in counterbalanced order while human adults and infants were tested in one condition each; the paper reports no significant order effects, but the design difference remains a possible interpretive constraint.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03212211

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

16 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The goodness ratings were highly consistent across listeners.

    “The ratings were highly consistent across listeners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a significant condition x distance interaction on goodness ratings, F(3,42)=391.3, p<.001.

    “a significant condition x distance interaction effect was also obtained [F(3,42) = 391.3,p < .001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Follow-up tests for simple effects revealed that the effect of distance was highly significant for both groups considered individually.

    “Follow-up tests for simple effects revealed that the effect of distance was highly significant for both groups considered individually (both ps < .(01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Stimuli surrounding the prototype received significantly higher goodness ratings than did stimuli surrounding the nonprototype, main effect condition F(1,14)=432.7, p<.001.

    “The results showed that the stimuli surrounding P received significantly higher ratings than did the stimuli surrounding NP, as reflected in the highly significant main effect for condition [F(1,14) = 432.7,p < .001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Discrimination performance varied significantly depending on the typicality of the referent exemplar.

    “However, discrimination performance varied significantly, depending on the typicality of the referent exemplar.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Stimuli in a particular region of the vowel space stood out as the best exemplars of the category; ratings declined evenly and symmetrically around the best instances.

    “Stimuli in a particular region of the vowel space stood out as the best exemplars ofthe category; moreover, the ratings declined evenly and symmetrically around the best instances.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Stimuli in orbits around the nonprototype received relatively low ratings, with an increase in ratings as they neared the region of vowel space occupied by the prototype.

    “Conversely, stimuli in the orbits around NP received relatively low ratings, with an increase in ratings as they neared the region of the vowel space occupied by P.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The nonprototype Iii vowel was given an average goodness rating of 2.0 by adults.

    “the P was given an average rating of 6.7 and the NP was given an average rating of 2.0.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adults were highly accurate at detecting within-category vowel differences; across both conditions, overall percent-correct scores were above 75%.

    “Overall, adults were highly accurate at detecting within-category vowel differences.Across both conditions, overall percent-correct scores were above 75%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All Iii vowels are not perceived to be equal by adults; some are perceived as better exemplars of the category than others.

    “These ratings revealed that all Iii vowels are not perceived to be equal by adults; some are perceived as better exemplars of the category than others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The prototype Iii vowel was given an average goodness rating of 6.7 by adults.

    “the P was given an average rating of 6.7 and the NP was given an average rating of 2.0.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ratings for stimuli nearest the prototype tended to be highest; ratings consistently decreased with increases in distance from the prototype.

    “The ratings for the stimuli nearest the P tended to be highest; the ratings consistently decreased with increases in distance from P.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Goodness ratings declined in a consistent fashion, with a particular location in vowel space resulting in better ratings.

    “Moreover, goodness ratings declined in a consistent fashion, with a particular location in vowel space resulting in better ratings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In the discrimination phase, the mean number of trials to criterion was 22.3 for the P group and 26.3 for the NP group, a difference that was not significant.

    “In the discrimination phase, the mean number of trials to criterion was 22.3 for the P group and 26.3 for the NP group, a difference that also was not significant [t(30) = 1.45,P > .15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For adults and infants (but not monkeys), there is a statistically significant difference between overall percent-correct scores in the two conditions, with scores being higher in the nonprototype condition.

    “For adults and infants (but not monkeys), there is a statistically significant difference between scores in the two conditions, with overall percent-correct scores being higher in the nonprototype condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The mean number of trials to criterion during conditioning was 13.6 for the P group and 16.7 for the NP group, a difference that was nonsignificant.

    “The mean number of trials to criterion during conditioning was 13.6 for the P group and 16.7 for the NP group, a difference that was nonsignificant [t(30) = 1.50, P > .15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Even when the test involved the same four stimuli, generalization from the prototype toward the nonprototype occurred readily, and generalization from the nonprototype toward the prototype did not.

    “The results showed that even when the test involved the same four stimuli, generalization from the prototype toward the nonprototype occurred readily, and generalization from the nonprototype toward the prototype did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For adults and infants (but not monkeys), there is a statistically significant difference between generalization scores in the two conditions, with scores being higher in the prototype condition.

    “For adults and infants (but not monkeys), there is a statistically significant difference between generalization scores in the two conditions, with scores being higher in the prototype condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Condition (P vs. NP) and the condition x distance interaction were significant in the adult and infant data.

    “Both were significant in the adult and infant data, but neither of the two was significant for the monkeys (ps > .20).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Monkeys' generalization functions decreased with distance, as expected, but were asymmetrical across vector.

    “The monkeys showed a highly significant effect that was due to distance [F(3,12) = 34.3,p < .001]and a highly significanteffect of vector [F(7,28) = 3.5, p < .01],indicating that monkeys' generalization functions decreased with distance, as expected, but were asymmetrical across vector.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the P condition, monkeys generalized more toward stimuli on Vectors 5, 6, and 7; in the NP condition, generalization was greatest for stimuli on Vectors 4, 5, and 6.

    “The vector x condition interaction was also significant due to the fact that, in the P condition, the monkeys generalized more toward stimuli on Vectors 5, 6, and 7, whereas in the NP condition' generalization was greatest for stimuli on Vectors 4,5, and 6.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For monkeys, the effect of distance on generalization was highly significant; generalization decreased as stimuli moved from 01 to 04.

    “As expected, the effect of distance was highly significant for the monkeys; generalization decreased as the stimuli moved from 01 to 04.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither condition (P vs. NP) nor the condition x distance interaction was significant for the monkeys.

    “Both were significant in the adult and infant data, but neither of the two was significant for the monkeys (ps > .20).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Adults were able to provide subjective ratings of the overall adequacy or quality of a speech stimulus.

    “In Experiment 1, adults showed that they were able to provide subjective ratings of the overall adequacy or quality of a speech stimulus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither adult nor infant data suggest any effect of vector on performance.

    “Neither the adult nor the infant data suggest any effect of vector on performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no speech prototype effect for the monkeys; generalization around the prototype and the nonprototype was equal.

    “There was no speech prototype effect for the monkeys; generalization around the prototype and the nonprototype was equal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingcitation

    Preliminary results suggest that the perceptual magnet effect is strongly affected by linguistic experience.

    “A test of this hypothesis is currently underway in a collaborative experiment being conducted between researchers in Seattle and Sweden, and our preliminary results suggest that the perceptual magnet effect is strongly affected by linguistic experience (Kubl, 1990;Kubl, Williams, Lacerda, K. N. Stevens, & Lindblom, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kubl, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kubl, Williams, Lacerda, K. N. Stevens, & Lindblom, 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Infants' perception of speech categories was strongly affected by prototypicality; they demonstrated the perceptual magnet effect.

    “The results of Experiment 3 demonstrated that infants' perception of speech categories was also strongly affected by prototypicality; they, too, demonstrated the perceptual magnet effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premiseown data
    § Human adults and human infants show a "perceptual magnet effect" for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not

    Many perceptual categories exhibit internal structure in which category prototypes play an important role.

    “Many perceptual categories exhibit internal structure in which category prototypes play an important role.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The distance between the four orbits and the prototype (or nonprototype) vowel was equated in psychophysical terms using the mel scale.

    “The distance between the four orbits and the P (or the NP) vowel was equated in psychophysical terms.The metric used to equate the psychophysical distance of the orbits from P and NP was the mel scale (S. S. Stevens, Volkmann, & Newman, 1937).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites S. S. Stevens, Volkmann, & Newman, 1937 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Human adults and human infants show a "perceptual magnet effect" for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not

    Studies of visual categories show that good exemplars of a category have privileged status; they are more quickly encoded, more durably remembered, and often preferred over other members of the category.

    “Studies of visual categories show that good exemplars of a category have privileged status; they are more quickly encoded, they are more durably remembered, and they are often preferred over other members of the category”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gamer, 1974; Goldman & Homa, 1977; Mervis & Rosch, 1981

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Human adults and human infants show a "perceptual magnet effect" for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not

    Category goodness is a matter of degree, where some members are perceived as better exemplars, more representative or prototypic, than others.

    “Category goodness is a matter of degree, where some members are perceived as better exemplars, more representative or prototypic, than others (Rosch, 1975).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rosch, 1975 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Iii vowel stimuli covered the entire range of formant frequencies produced by typical male speakers.

    “The Iii vowel stimuli covered the entire range of formant frequencies produced by typical male speakers (Peterson & Barney, 1952).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Peterson & Barney, 1952 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Iii vowel is used universally in the world's languages; it is one of the three point vowels at the articulatory and acoustic extremes of the vowel space.

    “the vowel Iii is used universally in the world's languages; it is one of the three “point” vowels (Iii, Iat, and lui), the vowels that are at the articulatory and acoustic extremes of the vowel space (Jakobson, Fant, & Halle, 1969).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jakobson, Fant, & Halle, 1969

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Human adults and human infants show a "perceptual magnet effect" for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not

    Members of a phonetic category differ in perceptual potency; certain stimuli are more effective adaptors in selective adaptation experiments and more effective competitors in dichotic competition experiments.

    “it has been demonstrated that members of a phonetic category differ in perceptual potency; certain stimuli are more effective adaptors in selective adaptation experiments (Miller, Connine, Schermer, & Kluender, 1983; Samuel, 1982) and are more effective competitors in dichotic competition experiments (Miller, 1977;Repp, 1977).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller, Connine, Schermer, & Kluender, 1983; Samuel, 1982; Miller, 1977

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The directional asymmetry suggests that the prototype is an especially powerful perceptual anchor for the category; it pulls other stimuli toward the center of the category, effectively shortening the perceptual distance between stimuli at the outskirts of the category and the prototype center.

    “This directional asymmetry suggests that the prototype is an especially powerful perceptual anchor for the category; it pulls other stimuli toward the center of the category, effectively shortening the perceptual distance between stimuli at the outskirts of the category and the prototype center.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The directional asymmetry in the perception of within-category differences underscores the prototype's effect on perception: the prototype appears to function like a perceptual magnet.

    “This directional asymmetry in the perception of within-eategory differences underscores the prototype's effect on perception: the prototype appears to function like a perceptual magnet.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The pattern of results seen in Experiment 3 replicates and extends that obtained by Grieser and Kuhl (1989) using twice the number of stimuli and slightly different training procedures, demonstrating the robustness of the effect.

    “The pattern of results seen here replicate and extend that obtained by Grieser and Kuhl (1989) using twice the number of stimuli and slightly different training procedures, thus demonstrating the robustness of the effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grieser and Kuhl (1989) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The assistant did not know what kind of trial would be initiated and therefore could not bias the experiment by her knowledge of the infant's state.

    “The assistant did not know what kind of trial would be initiated and therefore could not bias the experiment by her knowledge of the infant's state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Monkeys were tested in both the P and NP conditions in counterbalanced order.

    “Because monkeys were testable for a longer period of time, they were tested in both the P and NP conditions in counterbalanced order.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research demonstrated many commonalities between young infants and animals in tests of speech perception, particularly those involving categorical perception.

    “This difference is of interest in light of previous research demonstrating many commonalities between young infants and animals in tests of speech perception, particularly those involving categorical perception (Kuhl, 1981;Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978;Kuhl & Padden, 1982, 1983;Morse & Snowdon, 1975;Waters & Wilson, 1976).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kuhl, 1981 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kuhl & Miller, 1975, 1978

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kuhl & Padden, 1982, 1983

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    No differences in the number of sessions required to meet the three-session criterion was seen for monkeys tested in the P condition first, relative to those tested in the NP condition first.

    “No differences in the number of sessions required to meet the three-session criterion was seen for monkeys tested in the P condition first, relative to those tested in the NP condition first.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Phonetic categories are internally structured for human adults and human infants, but they are not similarly structured for nonhuman animals.

    “The results of these experiments strongly suggest that phonetic categories are internally structured for human adults and human infants, but that they are not similarly structured for nonhuman animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The experimenter could not hear the stimuli presented to the infant and recorded the infant's head-turn responses.

    “The experimenter, who could not hear the stimuli presented to the infant, recorded the infant's head-turn responses by pressing a key on the computer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Monkeys' performance was unaffected by order.

    “The effect of order was not significant [F(l,4) = 3.2, p > .15],and the interactions of other factors with order were not significant (ps > .20),indicating that performance was unaffected by order.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The cassette player was used to provide classical music over headphones to the assistant and the caretaker so that they could not hear the stimuli being presented to the infant and therefore bias the infant's head-turn responses.

    “The cassette player was used to provide classical music over headphones to the assistant and the caretaker so that they could not hear the stimuli being presented to the infant and therefore bias the infant's head-tum responses in any way.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This mirrors the perceptual magnet effect for speech categories.

    “This mirrors what I have here called the perceptual magnet effect for speech categories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In the present experiment, there were no significant differences between the two groups of subjects in the number of trials taken to reach criterion in either the conditioning or the discrimination phases.

    “This change in the procedure was aimed at making the two groups more comparable at the start of the generalization test, and it appears to have been effective in that there were no significant differences between the two groups of subjects in the number of trials taken to reach criterion in either the conditioning or the discrimination phases of the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Effects of linguistic experience have previously been reported in 12-month-old infants.

    “Effects of linguistic experience have previously been reported in 12month-old infants (Werker et al., 1981; Werker & Tees, 1984);”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Werker et al., 1981 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Werker & Tees, 1984 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Certain boundaries of speech continua may be inherent to basic auditory processing, but the centers providing internal organization to speech categories require more than this.

    “The suggestion provided here is that certain boundaries of speech continua may be inherent to basic auditory processing, but that the centers providing internal organization to speech categories require more than this.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Representativeness had a potent effect on generalization; much greater generalization occurred when the initial instance was highly representative of the category as a whole.

    “The results showed that representativeness had a potent effect on generalization.Much greater generalization occurred when the initial instance was highly representative of the category as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rips, 1975 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In experiments examining the semantic structure of inductive judgments about category members, typicality of the member strongly affects subjects' judgments.

    “For example, in experiments examining the semantic structure of inductive judgments about category members (Rips, 1975), subjects show that the typicality of the member strongly affects subjects' judgments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rips, 1975 source

      Not checked in the free run.

47 of 47

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Miss responses in the discrimination task indicate that subjects perceived the referent vowel and the comparison vowel as similar (i.e., generalization responses).

    “Miss responses indicated that adults perceived the referent vowel and the comparison vowel as similar; in other words, they were generalization responses.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adult ratings of category goodness are valid indices of the category prototype.

    “The subjects were given a card on which the word peep was written; they were told to rate the perceived goodness of each stimulus as an exemplar of the vowel contained in the word on the card.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Monkeys' auditory abilities are well matched to those of humans.

    “one whose auditory abilities are well matched to those of man, such as the monkey.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Six-month-old infants have had considerable experience listening to their native language.

    “Six-month-old infants have had considerable experience in listening to their native language”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The monkeys' generalization task was sensitive enough to detect a prototype effect if one existed.

    “The positive distance and vector effects are important because they show that the monkeys were responsive in the task”
5 of 5

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?

  • Animals do not exhibit the perceptual magnet effect.

    “Interestingly, comparative tests show that, unlike categorical perception, animals do not exhibit the perceptual magnet effect (64).”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [64]

  • 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 [64]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(30) = 1.50, p > .15

    Minor

    The paper reports p > .15 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .144 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .144

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(30) = 1.5reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .144

    “t(30) = 1.50, p > .15”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 14) = 45.7reported p < 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 14) = 45.7,p < .00”

  • ConsistentF(1, 14) = 432.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,14) = 432.7,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 42) = 168.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,42) = 168.7,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 42) = 391.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,42) = 391.3,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 42) = 12.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,42) = 12.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 42) = 6.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,42) = 6.8, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(30) = 1.45reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .157

    “t(30) = 1.45,p > .15”

  • Consistentt(30) = 3.87reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(30) = 3.87, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 30) = 46.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(I,30) = 46.3,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 90) = 1069.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,90) = 1,069.9,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 90) = 37.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,90) = 37.3, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 30) = 6.82reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(l,30) = 6.82, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 4) = 3.2reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .148

    “F(l,4) = 3.2, p > .15”

  • ConsistentF(3, 12) = 34.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,12) = 34.3,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(7, 28) = 3.5reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(7,28) = 3.5, p < .01”

16 of 16

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Monkey vector responses are described as unaffected by condition despite a significant interaction

    Major

    The paper reports a significant vector-by-condition interaction and different vectors with the greatest generalization in the two conditions. Its later claim that vector responses were wholly unaffected by the referent condition contradicts that result.

  • Infant generalization was not higher for the prototype at every distance

    Minor

    At the third distance, the reported generalization score is 25.3% for the prototype group and 28.7% for the nonprototype group, contrary to the claim that the prototype group scored higher at each distance.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M., &Halle, M. (1969).Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Kuhl, P. K. (1987). Perception of speech and sound in early infancy. In P. Salapatek & L. Cohen (Eds.),Handbook of infant perception: From perception to cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 275–382). New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Kuhl, Patricia K.
ORCID
Kuhl, Patricia K.
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1991-03
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
93-107
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03212211
OpenAlex
W2150389998
Semantic Scholar
280e6b41f5b9636bcf0d55bc5531fbc5e4603f02
Cited by
1,331
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 40
FWCI
19.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, vowel perception, category generalization, infant speech perception, rhesus monkeys
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Attention, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Macaca mulatta, Phonetics, Sound Spectrography, Species Specificity, Speech Perception

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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