English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

McGettigan et al. (1) argue that the articulatory interference effects observed by Yuen et al. (2) may have arisen as a result of the strategic demands of the secondary phoneme monitoring task employed in our study and, as such, may say little about the basic processes underlying normal speech perception. This is a valid criticism following an increasing awareness that the results of speech perception experiments must be interpreted in the context of the task used to measure speech perception (3). If articulatory information is activated automatically in speech perception, our interference effects should be revealed, irrespective of the secondary task, so long as the distractor …

Response to McGettigan et al.: Task-based accounts are not sufficiently coherent to explain articulatory effects in speech perception