Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
- PMC
- PMC13652776
- OpenAlex
- W7221189783
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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