↓ Skip to main content

The time course of auditory and language-specific mechanisms in compensation for sibilant assimilation

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
The time course of auditory and language-specific mechanisms in compensation for sibilant assimilation
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13414-014-0750-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meghan Clayards, Oliver Niebuhr, M. Gareth Gaskell

Abstract

Models of spoken-word recognition differ on whether compensation for assimilation is language-specific or depends on general auditory processing. English and French participants were taught words that began or ended with the sibilants /s/ and /∫/. Both languages exhibit some assimilation in sibilant sequences (e.g., /s/ becomes like [∫] in dress shop and classe chargée), but they differ in the strength and predominance of anticipatory versus carryover assimilation. After training, participants were presented with novel words embedded in sentences, some of which contained an assimilatory context either preceding or following. A continuum of target sounds ranging from [s] to [∫] was spliced into the novel words, representing a range of possible assimilation strengths. Listeners' perceptions were examined using a visual-world eyetracking paradigm in which the listener clicked on pictures matching the novel words. We found two distinct language-general context effects: a contrastive effect when the assimilating context preceded the target, and flattening of the sibilant categorization function (increased ambiguity) when the assimilating context followed. Furthermore, we found that English but not French listeners were able to resolve the ambiguity created by the following assimilatory context, consistent with their greater experience with assimilation in this context. The combination of these mechanisms allows listeners to deal flexibly with variability in speech forms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 10 24%
Psychology 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,612,773
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#782
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,274
of 246,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#20
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.