Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741776›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

Dataset size considerations for robust acoustic and phonetic speech encoding models in EEG.

Maansi Desai, Alyssa M Field, Liberty S Hamilton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maansi DesaiDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
Alyssa M FieldDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
Liberty S HamiltonDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many experiments that investigate auditory and speech processing in the brain using electroencephalography (EEG), the experimental paradigm is often lengthy and tedious. Typically, the experimenter errs on the side of including more data, more trials, and therefore conducting a longer task to ensure that the data are robust and effects are measurable. Recent studies used naturalistic stimuli to investigate the brain's response to individual or a combination of multiple speech features using system identification techniques, such as multivariate temporal receptive field (mTRF) analyses. The neural data collected from such experiments must be divided into a training set and a test set to fit and validate the mTRF weights. While a good strategy is clearly to collect as much data as is feasible, it is unclear how much data are needed to achieve stable results. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the specific stimulus used for mTRF fitting and the choice of feature representation affects how much data would be required for robust and generalizable results. Here, we used previously collected EEG data from our lab using sentence stimuli and movie stimuli as well as EEG data from an open-source dataset using audiobook stimuli to better understand how much data needs to be collected for naturalistic speech experiments measuring acoustic and phonetic tuning. We found that the EEG receptive field structure tested here stabilizes after collecting a training dataset of approximately 200 s of TIMIT sentences, around 600 s of movie trailers training set data, and approximately 460 s of audiobook training set data. Thus, we provide suggestions on the minimum amount of data that would be necessary for fitting mTRFs from naturalistic listening data. Our findings are motivated by highly practical concerns when working with children, patient populations, or others who may not tolerate long study sessions. These findings will aid future researchers who wish to study naturalistic speech processing in healthy and clinical populations while minimizing participant fatigue and retaining signal quality.

Indexed as

electroencephalographyexperimental designlinear modelnatural stimulispectrotemporal receptive field

Identifiers

PMID36741776
PMCPMC9895838
OpenAlexW4317521348

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.