MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203111441 · doi:10.1017/s1366728915000620

Phonological processing in late second language learners: The effects of proficiency and task

2015· article· en· W2203111441 on OpenAlexaff
Erin J. White, Debra Titone, Fred Genesee, Karsten Steinhauer

Bibliographic record

VenueBilingualism Language and Cognition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and MusicHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudowordPsychologyN400First languagePhonologyP3bCategorizationSecond languageLanguage proficiencyStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyEvent-related potentialLinguisticsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using event related brain potentials (ERPs), we examined the neurocognitive basis of phonological discrimination of phoneme /h/ in native English speakers and Francophone late second language (L2) learners, as a function of L2 proficiency and stimulus/task demands. In Experiment 1, native and non-native (L2 only) phonological contrasts were presented as syllables during a task that directed attention to phonological form. Phonological categorization was assessed with MMN, N2b and P3b effects. In Experiment 2, the same contrasts were presented as words/ pseudowords during a task that directed attention to semantics. Phonological discrimination was assessed with N400 pseudoword effects. High proficiency L2 learners displayed similar ERPs as native speakers in both experiments; low proficiency L2 learners showed discrimination of non-native contrasts in Experiment 1 (directed attention task) only. Thus, L2 phonological discrimination by late learners may depend on stimulus/task factors and occurs in a wider range of contexts as L2 proficiency improves.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBilingualism Language and CognitionSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207