ArticleeLife2020
Rapid computations of spectrotemporal prediction error support perception of degraded speech.
Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural tracking of surprisal and semantic distance in naturalistic movie viewing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Quantifying the Influence of Lexical Surprisal on Acoustic Speech Encoding While Controlling for Within-Speaker Variability.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Active inference and speech motor control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Munich Sentence (MuSe) Database: Completion norms and audio recordings for 619 German sentences.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Convergent neural signatures of speech prediction error are a biological marker for spoken word recognition.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Deep-learning models reveal how context and listener attention shape electrophysiological correlates of speech-to-language transformation.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Article
- A predictive coding model of the N400.Cognition · 2024Article
- Perceiving and misperceiving speech: lexical and sublexical processing in the superior temporal lobes.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Can prediction error explain predictability effects on the N1 during picture-word verification?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Contra assertions, feedback improves word recognition: How feedback and lateral inhibition sharpen signals over noise.Cognition · 2024Article
- Fast frequency modulation is encoded according to the listener expectations in the human subcortical auditory pathway.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Distinct roles of delta- and theta-band neural tracking for sharpening and predictive coding of multi-level speech features during spoken language processing.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- Eelbrain, a Python toolkit for time-continuous analysis with temporal response functions.eLife · 2023Article
- Predictive coding across the left fronto-temporal hierarchy during language comprehension.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Expectations boost the reconstruction of auditory features from electrophysiological responses to noisy speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Differential Auditory and Visual Phase-Locking Are Observed during Audio-Visual Benefit and Silent Lip-Reading for Speech Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Human speech perception can be described as Bayesian perceptual inference but how are these Bayesian computations instantiated neurally? We used magnetoencephalographic recordings of brain responses to degraded spoken words and experimentally manipulated signal quality and prior knowledge. We first demonstrate that spectrotemporal modulations in speech are more strongly represented in neural responses than alternative speech representations (e.g. spectrogram or articulatory features). Critically, we found an interaction between speech signal quality and expectations from prior written text on the quality of neural representations; increased signal quality enhanced neural representations of speech that mismatched with prior expectations, but led to greater suppression of speech that matched prior expectations. This interaction is a unique neural signature of prediction error computations and is apparent in neural responses within 100 ms of speech input. Our findings contribute to the detailed specification of a computational model of speech perception based on predictive coding frameworks.
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.