Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32732017›Full record

ArticleHearing research2021

Active listening.

Karl J Friston, Noor Sajid, David Ricardo Quiroga-Martinez, Thomas Parr, Cathy J Price, Emma Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Active inference and speech motor control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The active construction of past episodes.Translational neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  6. SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. An active inference account of stuttering behavior.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Federated inference and belief sharing.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karl J FristonThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: k.friston@ucl.ac.uk.
Noor SajidThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: noor.sajid.18@ucl.ac.uk.
David Ricardo Quiroga-MartinezThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: dquiroga@clin.au.dk.
Thomas ParrThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: thomas.parr.12@ucl.ac.uk.
Cathy J PriceThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: c.j.price@ucl.ac.uk.
Emma HolmesThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: emma.holmes@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S502522/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 088130/Z/09/ZWellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust WT091681MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper introduces active listening, as a unified framework for synthesising and recognising speech. The notion of active listening inherits from active inference, which considers perception and action under one universal imperative: to maximise the evidence for our (generative) models of the world. First, we describe a generative model of spoken words that simulates (i) how discrete lexical, prosodic, and speaker attributes give rise to continuous acoustic signals; and conversely (ii) how continuous acoustic signals are recognised as words. The 'active' aspect involves (covertly) segmenting spoken sentences and borrows ideas from active vision. It casts speech segmentation as the selection of internal actions, corresponding to the placement of word boundaries. Practically, word boundaries are selected that maximise the evidence for an internal model of how individual words are generated. We establish face validity by simulating speech recognition and showing how the inferred content of a sentence depends on prior beliefs and background noise. Finally, we consider predictive validity by associating neuronal or physiological responses, such as the mismatch negativity and P300, with belief updating under active listening, which is greatest in the absence of accurate prior beliefs about what will be heard next.

Indexed as

HearingLanguageNoiseSpeech Perceptionactive inferenceactive listeningAuditionSegmentationspeech recognitionVariational BayesVoice

Identifiers

PMID32732017
PMCPMC7812378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.