Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting

Abstract When processing speech, not every listener relies to the same degree on the various available types of information. It is unknown, however, whether differences in cue reliance reflect chronic or task-specific preferences of the individual. In a two-session study, we assessed how reliance on top-down (semantic) and bottom-up (acoustic–phonetic) cues differed across individuals in a cue-weighting task and how these patterns of cue weighting related to other independent measures of top-down and bottom-up cue use. We assessed semantic cue weighting by measuring semantic priming in a lexical decision task and we assessed the stability and gradience of listeners’ acoustic–phonetic sensitivity using a visual analogue scale task on two phonetic contrasts. We found that individuals who relied more on bottom-up cues when listening to sentences also had more consistent response patterns in our phonetic task. This finding suggests that individuals who rely more on acoustic–phonetic information when listening to sentences may do so because they have more stable low-level representations. Additionally, these results provide external validity as to the types of individual differences measures we assess, particularly in more naturalistic, sentence-listening contexts.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-026-02917-4
Primary Topic
Phonetics and Phonology Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting

Anne Marie Crinnion, Emily B. Myers, James S. Magnuson
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Phonetics and Phonology Research
article

Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting

Anne Marie Crinnion, Emily B. Myers, James S. Magnuson
article en

Abstract

Abstract When processing speech, not every listener relies to the same degree on the various available types of information. It is unknown, however, whether differences in cue reliance reflect chronic or task-specific preferences of the individual. In a two-session study, we assessed how reliance on top-down (semantic) and bottom-up (acoustic–phonetic) cues differed across individuals in a cue-weighting task and how these patterns of cue weighting related to other independent measures of top-down and bottom-up cue use. We assessed semantic cue weighting by measuring semantic priming in a lexical decision task and we assessed the stability and gradience of listeners’ acoustic–phonetic sensitivity using a visual analogue scale task on two phonetic contrasts. We found that individuals who relied more on bottom-up cues when listening to sentences also had more consistent response patterns in our phonetic task. This finding suggests that individuals who rely more on acoustic–phonetic information when listening to sentences may do so because they have more stable low-level representations. Additionally, these results provide external validity as to the types of individual differences measures we assess, particularly in more naturalistic, sentence-listening contexts.

Psychonomic Bulletin & ReviewVol. 33(8)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Phonetics and Phonology Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic–phonetic cue weighting — Anne Marie Crinnion, Emily B. Myers, et al. · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS