MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7000526240

Examining interactivity in speech perception : compensation for lexically-induced coarticulation

2002· dissertation· en· W7000526240 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2002
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill UniversityFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityMedical Research Council CanadaUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsInteractivityCoarticulationPerceptionContext (archaeology)Speech perceptionContext effect
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the psycholinguistic literature is rife with examples of lexical influences on phoneme identification, a debate still rages among theorists over whether these influences reflect a top-down, interactive speech perception system, or are merely evidence of post-perceptual decision biases. The failure to resolve this debate may be attributed to the shortcomings of many of the previously used behavioral methodologies, which have been unable to ensure that subject responses in phoneme decision tasks have their locus in pre-lexical phonetic processes, rather than post-lexical phonological codes. However, one promising methodology that has been applied only sparsely to the interactivity debate is the low-level compensation-for-coarticulation effect (Mann, 1980; Mann & Repp, 1981). The power of this effect is that it is believed to demonstrate a process that occurs at a pre-lexical, phonetic-perceptual level; in fact, researchers from both sides of the debate have relied on this assumption to both support (Elman & McClelland, 1988) and refute (Pitt & McQueen, 1998) the interactivity hypothesis. The current study built upon this previous work by employing stimuli that provide a richer semantic context, yet also serve to provide a more stringent test of feedback from lexical to pre-lexical processes than has heretofore been used. Experiment 1 replicated the low-level compensation-for-coarticulation effect with fricative and liquid context phonemes that precede /k/-/t/ and /g/-/d/ continuum stimuli. Experiment 2 directly tested the interactivity hypothesis using illusory, lexically-implied fricative and liquid phonemes to evoke the compensation effect, and found evidence for lexical feedback only with the liquid context phonemes. Experiment 3 retested the fricative context stimuli from the preceding experiment with a new set of phonetic identification continua that possessed a greater degree of ambiguity, and found evidence of lexical feedbac

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→