MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123831304 · doi:10.1121/2.0002198

Perceptual learning of plain-ejective contrast by naïve listeners

2024· article· W7123831304 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Mahlmann, Yoonjung Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)Perceptual learningPerceptionFeature (linguistics)Noise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent cross-linguistic study finds that the presence of post-burst silence versus aspiration is a primary cue for ejective-plain stop contrast while VOT (voice onset time) plays a minor role (Percival, 2024).This study explores whether English listeners can acquire this release cue after a short exposure and distributional training: "natural correlation" or "inhibition" (Kondaurova and Francis, 2010).Target words were created from Q'anjob'al /tu/ and /t'u/, distinguished by both VOT (short versus high) and release (aspiration versus silence).In the exposure phase, listeners heard stimuli along with pseudoorthographic forms, or .In the training phase, listeners were given feedback: the "natural correlation" group (n=31) was trained on the same stimuli as the exposure phase; for the "inhibition" group (n=29), only the release cue distinguished the stops and VOT varied from short to long for both stops.The pre-test and post-test show that the release cue, already a primary cue prior to training for most listeners, especially with longer VOT, became stronger after training.No group difference was found.The novel release cue likely makes ejectives poor exemplars of English stops, therefore, easy to distinguish from plain stops (Best et al. 2001).

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207