Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Group Design02:01

Group Design

9.9K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
9.9K
Variability: Analysis01:11

Variability: Analysis

249
Measures of variability are statistical metrics that reveal the dispersion pattern within a dataset. They are pivotal in biostatistics, providing insights into the heterogeneity within health and biological data. Variability signifies the degree to which data points diverge from one another, helping researchers understand the potential range of values and associated uncertainty within the data.
The range is a simple measure of variability, indicating the difference between the highest and...
249

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Are Faster Participants Always Faster? Assessing Reliability of Participants' Mean Response Speed in Picture Naming.

Journal of cognition·2024
Same author

Relationships between native and non-native speech perception.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2023
Same author

Reliability and validity for perceptual flexibility in speech.

Brain and language·2022
Same author

Distributional properties of semantic interference in picture naming: Bayesian meta-analyses.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2021
Same author

Structural neural correlates of individual differences in categorical perception.

Brain and language·2021
Same author

Adults Show Initial Advantages Over Children in Learning Difficult Nonnative Speech Sounds.

Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR·2020

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 3, 2025

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
09:09

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody

Published on: September 27, 2024

631

Examining group differences in between-participant variability in non-native speech sound learning.

Pamela Fuhrmeister1

  • 1Department of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany. fuhrmeister@uni-potsdam.de.

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
|June 5, 2021
PubMed
Summary

Phonetic training variability differs between blocked and interleaved methods. Offline consolidation reduces this variability, suggesting training type impacts initial learning but not long-term outcomes.

Keywords:
Heterogeneity of varianceIndividual differencesNon-native speech sound learning

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Investigating the Impact of Emotional Prosodies on Voice Recognition and Perception
05:48

Author Spotlight: Investigating the Impact of Emotional Prosodies on Voice Recognition and Perception

Published on: August 9, 2024

1.7K
Measuring Statistical Learning Across Modalities and Domains in School-Aged Children Via an Online Platform and Neuroimaging Techniques
08:05

Measuring Statistical Learning Across Modalities and Domains in School-Aged Children Via an Online Platform and Neuroimaging Techniques

Published on: June 30, 2020

7.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 3, 2025

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
09:09

Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody

Published on: September 27, 2024

631
Author Spotlight: Investigating the Impact of Emotional Prosodies on Voice Recognition and Perception
05:48

Author Spotlight: Investigating the Impact of Emotional Prosodies on Voice Recognition and Perception

Published on: August 9, 2024

1.7K
Measuring Statistical Learning Across Modalities and Domains in School-Aged Children Via an Online Platform and Neuroimaging Techniques
08:05

Measuring Statistical Learning Across Modalities and Domains in School-Aged Children Via an Online Platform and Neuroimaging Techniques

Published on: June 30, 2020

7.8K

Area of Science:

  • Second language acquisition
  • Phonetics and phonology
  • Cognitive psychology

Background:

  • Non-native speech sound learning often shows significant between-participant variability.
  • Understanding how training methods influence this variability is crucial for effective language pedagogy.
  • Previous research found no mean differences between blocked and interleaved training.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To reanalyze existing data to investigate group differences in between-participant variability.
  • To determine if phonetic training type (blocked vs. interleaved) affects learning variability.
  • To assess the impact of offline consolidation on learning variability.

Main Methods:

  • Reanalysis of data from Fuhrmeister and Myers (2020).
  • Comparison of between-participant variability in blocked versus interleaved phonetic training groups.
  • Analysis of discrimination test performance immediately after training and after offline consolidation.

Main Results:

  • The blocked training group exhibited greater between-participant variability immediately post-training.
  • This increased variability in the blocked group was due to a higher proportion of above-average scores.
  • Group differences in variability significantly decreased after a period of offline consolidation.

Conclusions:

  • Phonetic training type can initially influence between-participant variability in non-native speech sound learning.
  • Offline consolidation plays a role in attenuating initial variability, leading to more equalized outcomes.
  • Analyzing between-participant variability alongside means provides a more comprehensive understanding of learning effects.