ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2010
Distinct effects of perceptual quality on auditory word recognition, memory formation and recall in a neural model of sequential memory.
Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-pacing ameliorates recall deficit when listening to vocoded discourse: a cochlear implant simulation.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Neuronal mechanisms for sequential activation of memory items: Dynamics and reliability.PloS one · 2020Article
- Spatiotemporal discrimination in attractor networks with short-term synaptic plasticity.Journal of computational neuroscience · 2019Article
- The Impact of Age, Background Noise, Semantic Ambiguity, and Hearing Loss on Recognition Memory for Spoken Sentences.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Learning to Generate Sequences with Combination of Hebbian and Non-hebbian Plasticity in Recurrent Spiking Neural Networks.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Itinerancy between attractor states in neural systems.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2016Review
- Alterations in gray matter volume due to unilateral hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Effort Not Speed Characterizes Comprehension of Spoken Sentences by Older Adults with Mild Hearing Impairment.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2016Article
- Effects of Age, Acoustic Challenge, and Verbal Working Memory on Recall of Narrative Speech.Experimental aging research · 2016Article
- The intelligibility of interrupted and temporally altered speech: Effects of context, age, and hearing loss.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016Article
- Cognitive aging and hearing acuity: modeling spoken language comprehension.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Review
- Acoustic masking disrupts time-dependent mechanisms of memory encoding in word-list recall.Memory & cognition · 2014Article
- Methodological challenges and solutions in auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2014Review
- Monitoring the capacity of working memory: executive control and effects of listening effort.Memory & cognition · 2013Article
- Writer's cramp: increased dorsal premotor activity during intended writing.Human brain mapping · 2013Article
- Compensatory changes in cortical resource allocation in adults with hearing loss.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2013Article
- Stimulus number, duration and intensity encoding in randomly connected attractor networks with synaptic depression.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2013Article
- The hidden effect of hearing acuity on speech recall, and compensatory effects of self-paced listening.International journal of audiology · 2012Article
- Hearing loss in older adults affects neural systems supporting speech comprehension.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2011Article
- Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models.Brain research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adults with sensory impairment, such as reduced hearing acuity, have impaired ability to recall identifiable words, even when their memory is otherwise normal. We hypothesize that poorer stimulus quality causes weaker activity in neurons responsive to the stimulus and more time to elapse between stimulus onset and identification. The weaker activity and increased delay to stimulus identification reduce the necessary strengthening of connections between neurons active before stimulus presentation and neurons active at the time of stimulus identification. We test our hypothesis through a biologically motivated computational model, which performs item recognition, memory formation and memory retrieval. In our simulations, spiking neurons are distributed into pools representing either items or context, in two separate, but connected winner-takes-all (WTA) networks. We include associative, Hebbian learning, by comparing multiple forms of spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP), which strengthen synapses between coactive neurons during stimulus identification. Synaptic strengthening by STDP can be sufficient to reactivate neurons during recall if their activity during a prior stimulus rose strongly and rapidly. We find that a single poor quality stimulus impairs recall of neighboring stimuli as well as the weak stimulus itself. We demonstrate that within the WTA paradigm of word recognition, reactivation of separate, connected sets of non-word, context cells permits reverse recall. Also, only with such coactive context cells, does slowing the rate of stimulus presentation increase recall probability. We conclude that significant temporal overlap of neural activity patterns, absent from individual WTA networks, is necessary to match behavioral data for word recall.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.