ArticleeNeuro
MVPA Analysis of Intertrial Phase Coherence of Neuromagnetic Responses to Words Reliably Classifies Multiple Levels of Language Processing in the Brain.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Low-Frequency Neural Activity Structures Language in Time.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Inflectional zero morphology - Linguistic myth or neurocognitive reality?Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Functional connectivity of spoken language processing in early-stage Parkinson's disease: An MEG study.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neural processing of language is still among the most poorly understood functions of the human brain, whereas a need to objectively assess the neurocognitive status of the language function in a participant-friendly and noninvasive fashion arises in various situations. Here, we propose a solution for this based on a short task-free recording of MEG responses to a set of spoken linguistic contrasts. We used spoken stimuli that diverged lexically (words/pseudowords), semantically (action-related/abstract), or morphosyntactically (grammatically correct/ungrammatical). Based on beamformer source reconstruction we investigated intertrial phase coherence (ITPC) in five canonical bands (α, β, and low, medium, and high γ) using multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA). Using this approach, we could successfully classify brain responses to meaningful words from meaningless pseudowords, correct from incorrect syntax, as well as semantic differences. The best classification results indicated distributed patterns of activity dominated by core temporofrontal language circuits and complemented by other areas. They varied between the different neurolinguistic properties across frequency bands, with lexical processes classified predominantly by broad γ, semantic distinctions by α and β, and syntax by low γ feature patterns. Crucially, all types of processing commenced in a near-parallel fashion from ∼100 ms after the auditory information allowed for disambiguating the spoken input. This shows that individual neurolinguistic processes take place simultaneously and involve overlapping yet distinct neuronal networks that operate at different frequency bands. This brings further hope that brain imaging can be used to assess neurolinguistic processes objectively and noninvasively in a range of populations.
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.