MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048672119 · doi:10.1121/1.4743896

Training Mandarin and Cantonese speakers to identify English vowel contrasts: Long-term retention and effect on production

2000· article· en· W2048672119 on OpenAlexaff
Xinchun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandarin ChineseVowelDuration (music)PerceptionAudiologyContrast (vision)PsychologyGeneralizationSpeech recognitionNatural (archaeology)Speech productionProduction (economics)Computer scienceAcousticsMathematicsLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthesized hVd vowel stimuli and naturally produced CVC minimal pairs by multiple talkers were used to train native Mandarin and Cantonese speakers to identify the English /i/–/I/, /u/–/U/, and /E/–/Q/ contrasts. In the pre- and post-tests, subjects took the identification tests on synthesized and natural stimuli, and were also recorded producing the target vowel contrasts. Results showed that subjects relied on duration cues for the /i/–/I/, contrast more consistently than they did for the other two contrasts. Training effectively shifted their attention from duration to spectral cues. Trainees’ perceptual performance on natural tokens improved significantly from pretest to post-test on all three contrasts. Accuracy in generalization to new words produced by new talkers was comparable to new words by familiar talkers. The effect of perceptual learning was retained 3 months later after the training was completed. Improvement in production was observed but performance differences between pre- and post-test did not reach significance. The findings suggest that increased perceptual accuracy in identifying L2 vowel contrasts through perceptual training may not be sufficient for significant improvement in production accuracy. Future studies may look at combination of simultaneous production and perceptual training for better results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207