↓ Skip to main content

The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: evidence and implications

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: evidence and implications
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan H. Kawamoto, Qiang Liu, Christopher T. Kello

Abstract

Speech production and reading aloud studies have much in common, especially the last stages involved in producing a response. We focus on the minimal planning unit (MPU) in articulation. Although most researchers now assume that the MPU is the syllable, we argue that it is at least as small as the segment based on negative response latencies (i.e., response initiation before presentation of the complete target) and longer initial segment durations in a reading aloud task where the initial segment is primed. We also discuss why such evidence was not found in earlier studies. Next, we rebut arguments that the segment cannot be the MPU by appealing to flexible planning scope whereby planning units of different sizes can be used due to individual differences, as well as stimulus and experimental design differences. We also discuss why negative response latencies do not arise in some situations and why anticipatory coarticulation does not preclude the segment MPU. Finally, we argue that the segment MPU is also important because it provides an alternative explanation of results implicated in the serial vs. parallel processing debate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Lecturer 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 8 36%
Psychology 3 14%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
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 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,177,072
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,544
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,173
of 275,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#337
of 538 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 275,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 538 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.