Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Word prosodic features of five languages in the experiment (rows 1–5) and predictions for success in the Sequence Recall Task (row 6).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Mean acoustic measurements of the prosodic tokens after durational adjustments pooled over 6 tokens of each nonword ([númi / numí]) for Persian and Dutch separately.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Sequences of nonwords used in the experiment.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Mean scores (percentages correct) for each language group as a function of contrast and stimulus type at the 3-word level of sequence length.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Mean scores (percentages correct) for each language group as a function of contrast and stimulus type at the 4-word level of sequence length.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Mean scores (percentages correct) for each language group as a function of contrast and stimulus type at the 5-word level of sequence length.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Summary of the repeated measures ANOVA: Scores by the language of the listener, the type of the contrast, the length of the sequence and the type of the stimulus.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 1.

Mean scores for each language group across the two contrasts.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 8.

Summary of the separate one-way ANOVAs for the segmental and prosodic contrasts.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Summary of a one-way ANOVA with a Sidak post-hoc analysis for the prosodic contrast.

More »

Table 9 Expand