↓ Skip to main content

How Linguistic Chickens Help Spot Spoken-Eggs: Phonological Constraints on Speech Identification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
How Linguistic Chickens Help Spot Spoken-Eggs: Phonological Constraints on Speech Identification
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iris Berent, Evan Balaban, Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum

Abstract

It has long been known that the identification of aural stimuli as speech is context-dependent (Remez et al., 1981). Here, we demonstrate that the discrimination of speech stimuli from their non-speech transforms is further modulated by their linguistic structure. We gauge the effect of phonological structure on discrimination across different manifestations of well-formedness in two distinct languages. One case examines the restrictions on English syllables (e.g., the well-formed melif vs. ill-formed mlif); another investigates the constraints on Hebrew stems by comparing ill-formed AAB stems (e.g., TiTuG) with well-formed ABB and ABC controls (e.g., GiTuT, MiGuS). In both cases, non-speech stimuli that conform to well-formed structures are harder to discriminate from speech than stimuli that conform to ill-formed structures. Auxiliary experiments rule out alternative acoustic explanations for this phenomenon. In English, we show that acoustic manipulations that mimic the mlif-melif contrast do not impair the classification of non-speech stimuli whose structure is well-formed (i.e., disyllables with phonetically short vs. long tonic vowels). Similarly, non-speech stimuli that are ill-formed in Hebrew present no difficulties to English speakers. Thus, non-speech stimuli are harder to classify only when they are well-formed in the participants' native language. We conclude that the classification of non-speech stimuli is modulated by their linguistic structure: inputs that support well-formed outputs are more readily classified as speech.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 15%
Unknown 11 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 23%
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 5 38%
Psychology 5 38%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
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 30 September 2011.
All research outputs
#18,297,449
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,778
of 29,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,894
of 180,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#199
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 180,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.