↓ Skip to main content

Effects of stimulus response compatibility on covert imitation of vowels

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Effects of stimulus response compatibility on covert imitation of vowels
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13414-018-1501-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patti Adank, Helen Nuttall, Harold Bekkering, Gwijde Maegherman

Abstract

When we observe someone else speaking, we tend to automatically activate the corresponding speech motor patterns. When listening, we therefore covertly imitate the observed speech. Simulation theories of speech perception propose that covert imitation of speech motor patterns supports speech perception. Covert imitation of speech has been studied with interference paradigms, including the stimulus-response compatibility paradigm (SRC). The SRC paradigm measures covert imitation by comparing articulation of a prompt following exposure to a distracter. Responses tend to be faster for congruent than for incongruent distracters; thus, showing evidence of covert imitation. Simulation accounts propose a key role for covert imitation in speech perception. However, covert imitation has thus far only been demonstrated for a select class of speech sounds, namely consonants, and it is unclear whether covert imitation extends to vowels. We aimed to demonstrate that covert imitation effects as measured with the SRC paradigm extend to vowels, in two experiments. We examined whether covert imitation occurs for vowels in a consonant-vowel-consonant context in visual, audio, and audiovisual modalities. We presented the prompt at four time points to examine how covert imitation varied over the distracter's duration. The results of both experiments clearly demonstrated covert imitation effects for vowels, thus supporting simulation theories of speech perception. Covert imitation was not affected by stimulus modality and was maximal for later time points.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 33%
Linguistics 6 18%
Engineering 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#13,409,618
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#461
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,117
of 336,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 73% 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 336,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.