MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Different Responses to Altered Auditory Feedback in Younger and Older Adults Reflect Differences in Lexical Bias

2019· article· en· W2942008645 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Colby, Douglas M. Shiller, Meghan Clayards, Shari R. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFormantAudiologyAuditory feedbackLexiconPerceptionVowelSpeech perceptionSpeech productionYoung adultLexical decision taskDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Previous work has found that both young and older adults exhibit a lexical bias in categorizing speech stimuli. In young adults, this has been argued to be an automatic influence of the lexicon on perceptual category boundaries. Older adults exhibit more top-down biases than younger adults, including an increased lexical bias. We investigated the nature of the increased lexical bias using a sensorimotor adaptation task designed to evaluate whether automatic processes drive this bias in older adults. Method A group of older adults ( n = 27) and younger adults ( n = 35) participated in an altered auditory feedback production task. Participants produced target words and nonwords under altered feedback that affected the 1st formant of the vowel. There were 2 feedback conditions that affected the lexical status of the target, such that target words were shifted to sound more like nonwords (e.g., less-liss) and target nonwords to sound more like words (e.g., kess-kiss). Results A mixed-effects linear regression was used to investigate the magnitude of compensation to altered auditory feedback between age groups and lexical conditions. Over the course of the experiment, older adults compensated (by shifting their production of 1st formant) more to altered auditory feedback when producing words that were shifted toward nonwords ( less-liss) than when producing nonwords that were shifted toward words ( kess-kiss). This is in contrast to younger adults who compensated more to nonwords that were shifted toward words compared to words that were shifted toward nonwords. Conclusion We found no evidence that the increased lexical bias previously observed in older adults is driven by a greater sensitivity to top-down lexical influence on perceptual category boundaries. We suggest the increased lexical bias in older adults is driven by postperceptual processes that arise as a result of age-related cognitive and sensory changes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207