↓ Skip to main content

Prediction and imitation in speech

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Prediction and imitation in speech
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00340
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara Gambi, Martin J. Pickering

Abstract

It has been suggested that intra- and inter-speaker variability in speech are correlated. Interlocutors have been shown to converge on various phonetic dimensions. In addition, speakers imitate the phonetic properties of voices they are exposed to in shadowing, repetition, and even passive listening tasks. We review three theoretical accounts of speech imitation and convergence phenomena: (i) the Episodic Theory (ET) of speech perception and production (Goldinger, 1998); (ii) the Motor Theory (MT) of speech perception (Liberman and Whalen, 2000; Galantucci et al., 2006); (iii) Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT; Giles and Coupland, 1991; Giles et al., 1991). We argue that no account is able to explain all the available evidence. In particular, there is a need to integrate low-level, mechanistic accounts (like ET and MT), and higher-level accounts (like CAT). We propose that this is possible within the framework of an integrated theory of production and comprehension (Pickering and Garrod, 2013). Similarly to both ET and MT, this theory assumes parity between production and perception. Uniquely, however, it posits that listeners simulate speakers' utterances by computing forward-model predictions at many different levels, which are then compared to the incoming phonetic input. In our account phonetic imitation can be achieved via the same mechanism that is responsible for sensorimotor adaptation; i.e., the correction of prediction errors. In addition, the model assumes that the degree to which sensory prediction errors lead to motor adjustments is context-dependent. The notion of context subsumes both the preceding linguistic input and non-linguistic attributes of the situation (e.g., the speaker's and listener's social identities, their conversational roles, the listener's intention to imitate).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 34%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 44 34%
Psychology 34 27%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 20 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,371,248
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,996
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,082
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#464
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 293,942 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 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 51% of its contemporaries.