Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35253871›Full record

ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2023

Expectations boost the reconstruction of auditory features from electrophysiological responses to noisy speech.

Andrew W Corcoran, Ricardo Perera, Matthieu Koroma, Sid Kouider, Jakob Hohwy, Thomas Andrillon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Slow Oscillation-Spindle Coupling Predicts Sequence-Based Language Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Neural tracking measures of speech intelligibility: Manipulating intelligibility while keeping acoustics unchanged.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Andrew W CorcoranCognition & Philosophy Laboratory, School of Philosophical, Historical, and International Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0449-4883
Ricardo PereraCognition & Philosophy Laboratory, School of Philosophical, Historical, and International Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800 Australia.
Matthieu KoromaBrain and Consciousness Group (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure-PSL Research University, Paris 75005, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2269-7841
Sid KouiderBrain and Consciousness Group (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure-PSL Research University, Paris 75005, France.
Jakob HohwyCognition & Philosophy Laboratory, School of Philosophical, Historical, and International Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800 Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-3060
Thomas AndrillonMonash Centre for Consciousness & Contemplative Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800 Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2794-8494

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online speech processing imposes significant computational demands on the listening brain, the underlying mechanisms of which remain poorly understood. Here, we exploit the perceptual "pop-out" phenomenon (i.e. the dramatic improvement of speech intelligibility after receiving information about speech content) to investigate the neurophysiological effects of prior expectations on degraded speech comprehension. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) and pupillometry from 21 adults while they rated the clarity of noise-vocoded and sine-wave synthesized sentences. Pop-out was reliably elicited following visual presentation of the corresponding written sentence, but not following incongruent or neutral text. Pop-out was associated with improved reconstruction of the acoustic stimulus envelope from low-frequency EEG activity, implying that improvements in perceptual clarity were mediated via top-down signals that enhanced the quality of cortical speech representations. Spectral analysis further revealed that pop-out was accompanied by a reduction in theta-band power, consistent with predictive coding accounts of acoustic filling-in and incremental sentence processing. Moreover, delta-band power, alpha-band power, and pupil diameter were all increased following the provision of any written sentence information, irrespective of content. Together, these findings reveal distinctive profiles of neurophysiological activity that differentiate the content-specific processes associated with degraded speech comprehension from the context-specific processes invoked under adverse listening conditions.

Indexed as

MotivationSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationElectroencephalographyNoiseSpeech IntelligibilityEEGpop-outpredictive processingspeech comprehensionstimulus reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID35253871
PMCPMC9890472

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.