Implicit and explicit phonetic imitations in single-word shadowing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talkers spontaneously accommodate to a model talker in single word shadowing tasks. This behavior has been termed implicit phonetic imitation, as talkers have no awareness of having modified their speech. In this study, we compare implicit phonetic imitation to explicit phonetic imitation across two groups of participants. All participants completed an auditory naming task, which included 50 monosyllabic words with the vowels /i ae a o u/ produced by a male model talker. With the exception of task instructions, the procedure was identical for both groups; one group, however, was given the instruction to explicitly imitate the model talker, while the other group was simply instructed to repeat the words naturally. We compare imitation across the two groups both acoustically by measuring vowel spectra and final stop patterns and auditorily by having listeners judge perceptual similarity. The results indicate (1) explicit and implicit imitation target different aspects of vowels; (2) the release of final stops are imitated in both conditions, but to a greater extent in the explicit condition; and (3) listeners perceive imitation in both conditions, but, again, to a greater extent in the explicit condition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".