↓ Skip to main content

Natural fast speech is perceived as faster than linearly time-compressed speech

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Natural fast speech is perceived as faster than linearly time-compressed speech
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, February 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1067-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Reinisch

Abstract

Listeners compensate for variation in speaking rate: In a fast context, a given sound is interpreted as longer than in a slow context. Experimental rate manipulations have been achieved either through linear compression or by using natural fast speech. However, in natural fast speech, segments are subject to processes such as reduction or deletion. If speaking rate is then defined as the number of segments per unit time, the question arises as to what impact such processes have on listeners' normalization for speaking rate. The present study tested the effect of sentence duration and fast-speech processes on rate normalization for a German vowel duration contrast. Results showed that a naturally produced short sentence containing segmental reductions and deletions led to the most "long" vowel responses whereas the long sentence with clearly articulated segments led to the fewest. This suggests that speaking rate is not merely calculated as the number of segments realized per unit time. Rather, listeners associate properties of natural fast speech with a higher speaking rate. This contrasts with earlier results and a second experiment in which perceived speaking rate was measured in an explicit task. Models of speech comprehension are evaluated with regard to the present findings.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 8 30%
Psychology 7 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#848
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,663
of 407,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#25
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 407,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.