Differential allocation of attention during speech perception in monolingual and bilingual listeners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention is required during speech perception to focus processing resources on critical information. Previous research has shown that bilingualism modifies attentional processing in nonverbal domains. The current study used event-related potentials (ERPs) to determine whether bilingualism also modifies auditory attention during speech perception. We measured attention to word onsets in spoken English for monolinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals. Auditory probes were inserted at four times in a continuous narrative: concurrent with word onset, 100 ms before or after onset, and at random control times. Greater attention was indexed by an increase in the amplitude of the early negativity (N1). Among monolinguals, probes presented after word onsets elicited a larger N1 than control probes, replicating previous studies. For bilinguals, there was no N1 difference for probes at different times around word onsets, indicating less specificity in allocation of attention. These results suggest that bilingualism shapes attentional strategies during English speech comprehension.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it