Cited by 0Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy Development

Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting

Open access
Crinnion, Anne Marie, Magnuson, James S., Myers, Emily B.·2026·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

When processing speech, not every listener relies to the same degree on the various available types of information. It is unknown, however, whether differences in cue reliance reflect chronic or task-specific preferences of the individual. In a two-session study, we assessed how reliance on top-down (semantic) and bottom-up (acoustic–phonetic) cues differed across individuals in a cue-weighting task and how these patterns of cue weighting related to other independent measures of top-down and bottom-up cue use. We assessed semantic cue weighting by measuring semantic priming in a lexical decision task and we assessed the stability and gradience of listeners’ acoustic–phonetic sensitivity using a visual analogue scale task on two phonetic contrasts. We found that individuals who relied more on bottom-up cues when listening to sentences also had more consistent response patterns in our phonetic task. This finding suggests that individuals who rely more on acoustic–phonetic information when listening to sentences may do so because they have more stable low-level representations. Additionally, these results provide external validity as to the types of individual differences measures we assess, particularly in more naturalistic, sentence-listening contexts.

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 · 10.3758/s13423-026-02917-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

  • How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise.

    Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.412282 · Cited by 1,089 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “For instance, some literature suggests that older adults rely more on higher-level context (Laver & Burke, 1993; Pichora-Fuller et al., 1995; Sommers & Danielson, 1999), though the evidence is mixed (e.g., Bieber et al., 2022; Shel-don et al., 2008).”

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Crinnion, A. M., Magnuson, J. S., & Myers, E. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Ikerbasque (ES)
Corresponding author
Myers, Emily B.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2026-10-09
Volume
33
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W7221189783
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2043903, 1747486)
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (BERC2022‐2025, CEX2020-001010-S, 2022-2025)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (CEX2020-001010-S, 2022-2025, CEX2020-001010, PID2023-149585NB-I00)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F31DC021372, DC013064, R01DC013064, T32DC017703)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
individual differences, semantic priming, lexical decision, phonetic contrasts, response consistency
MeSH terms
Adult, Cues, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Phonetics, Semantics, Speech Perception, Young Adult

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