ArticleScientific reports2022
Overt and implicit prosody contribute to neurophysiological responses previously attributed to grammatical processing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction, syntax and semantic grounding in the brain and large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How Low-Frequency Neural Activity Structures Language in Time.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Not primed to agree? Short or no effect of rhythmic priming on typical adults processing number agreement.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Concurrent processing of the prosodic hierarchy is supported by cortical entrainment and phase-amplitude coupling.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Structural and sequential regularities modulate phrase-rate neural tracking.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Speech prosody enhances the neural processing of syntax.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Covert cortical processing: a diagnosis in search of a definition.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Chunk boundaries disrupt dependency processing in an AG: Reconciling incremental processing and discrete sampling.PloS one · 2024Article
- Reply to 'Low-frequency neural parsing of hierarchical linguistic structures'.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Low-frequency neural parsing of hierarchical linguistic structures.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Intonation Units in Spontaneous Speech Evoke a Neural Response.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- When linguistic dogma rejects a neuroscientific hypothesis.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Periodic fluctuations in reading times reflect multi-word-chunking.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Fast and Slow Rhythms of Naturalistic Reading Revealed by Combined Eye-Tracking and Electroencephalography.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Inferring the nature of linguistic computations in the brain.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Hierarchy, Not Lexical Regularity, Modulates Low-Frequency Neural Synchrony During Language Comprehension.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent neurophysiological research suggests that slow cortical activity tracks hierarchical syntactic structure during online sentence processing. Here we tested an alternative hypothesis: electrophysiological activity peaks at constituent phrase as well as sentence frequencies reflect cortical tracking of overt or covert (implicit) prosodic grouping. Participants listened to series of sentences presented in three conditions while electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. First, prosodic cues in the sentence materials were neutralized. We found an EEG spectral power peak elicited at a frequency that only 'tagged' covert, implicit prosodic change, but not any major syntactic constituents. In the second condition, participants listened to a series of sentences with overt prosodic grouping cues that either aligned or misaligned with the syntactic phrasing in the sentences (initial overt prosody trials). Following each overt prosody trial, participants were presented with a second series of sentences lacking overt prosodic cues (instructed prosody trial) and were instructed to imagine the prosodic contour present in the previous, overt prosody trial. The EEG responses reflected an interactive relationship between syntactic processing and prosodic tracking at the frequencies of syntactic constituents (sentences and phrases): alignment of syntax and prosody boosted EEG responses, whereas their misalignment had an opposite effect. This was true for both overt and imagined prosody conditions. We conclude that processing of both overt and covert prosody is reflected in the frequency-tagged neural responses at sentence constituent frequencies. These findings need to be incorporated in any account that aims to identify neural markers reflecting syntactic processing.
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.