MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205836025 · doi:10.1080/23273798.2021.2018471

Plasticity of categories in speech perception and production

2022· article· en· W4205836025 on OpenAlexaff
Shane Lindsay, Meghan Clayards, S. Gennari, M. Gareth Gaskell

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Cognition and Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyVoice-onset timeSpeech productionCognitive psychologySpeech perceptionProduction (economics)Affect (linguistics)AudiologyCommunicationSpeech recognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While perceptual categories exhibit plasticity following recently heard speech, evidence of effects on production has been mixed. We tested the influences of perceptual plasticity on production with an implicit distributional learning paradigm. In Experiment 1, we exposed participants to an unlabelled bimodal distribution of voice onset time (VOT) using bilabial stop consonants, with a longer category boundary than is typical. Participants’ perceptual category boundaries shifted towards longer VOT, with a congruent increase in production VOT. Experiment 2 found evidence of perceptual transfer of these shifts to a different speaker and different syllables, and different words in production. Experiment 3 showed no shifts following exposure to a VOT boundary shorter than typical. We conclude that when listeners adjust their perceptual category boundaries, these changes may affect production categories, consistent with models where speech perception and production categories are linked, but with category boundaries influencing the link between perception and production.

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)0.005
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
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Cognition and NeuroscienceSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207