Are you talking to me? How the choice of speech register impacts listeners’ hierarchical encoding of speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Speakers accommodate their speech to meet the needs of their listeners, producing different speech registers. One such register is Foreigner-Directed Speech (FDS), which is the way native speakers address non-native listeners, typically characterized by features such as slow speech rate and phonetic exaggeration. Here, we investigated how register impacts the cortical encoding of speech at different levels of language integration. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that enhanced comprehension of FDS compared with Native-Directed Speech (NDS) involves more than just a slower speech rate, influencing speech processing from acoustic to semantic levels. Electroencephalography (EEG) signals were recorded from Spanish native listeners, who were learning English (L2 learners), and English native listeners (L1 listeners) as they were presented with audio-stories. Speech was presented in English in three different speech registers: FDS, NDS and a control register (Slow-NDS) which is slowed down version of NDS. We measured the cortical tracking of acoustic, phonological, and semantic information with a multivariate temporal response function analysis (TRF) on the EEG signals. We found that FDS promoted L2 learners’ cortical encoding at all the levels of speech and language processing considered. First, FDS led to a more pronounced encoding of the speech envelope. Second, phonological encoding was more refined when listening to FDS, with phoneme perception getting closer to that of L1 listeners. Finally, FDS also enhanced the TRF- N400, a neural signature of lexical expectations. Conversely FDS impacted acoustic but not linguistic speech encoding in L1 listeners. Taken together, these results support our hypothesis that FDS accommodates speech processing in L2 listeners beyond what can be achieved by simply speaking slowly, impacting the cortical encoding of sound and language at different abstraction levels. In turn, this study provides objective metrics that are sensitive to the impact of register on the hierarchical encoding of speech, which could be extended to other registers and cohorts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".