Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37229141›Full record

ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2023

Auditory Word Comprehension Is Less Incremental in Isolated Words.

Phoebe Gaston, Christian Brodbeck, Colin Phillips, Ellen Lau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Neural Dynamics of the Processing of Speech Features: Evidence for a Progression of Features from Acoustic to Sentential Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cortical Tracking of Continuous Speech Under Bimodal Divided Attention.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Phoebe GastonDepartment of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0367-7397
Christian BrodbeckInstitute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8380-639X
Colin PhillipsDepartment of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3886-3384
Ellen LauDepartment of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.

Funding

Training in the Cognitive Neuroscience of CommunicationT32DC017703 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Inge-Marie Eigsti, Emily B Myers · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial speech input is often understood to trigger rapid and automatic activation of successively higher-level representations of words, from sound to meaning. Here we show evidence from magnetoencephalography that this type of incremental processing is limited when words are heard in isolation as compared to continuous speech. This suggests a less unified and automatic word recognition process than is often assumed. We present evidence from isolated words that neural effects of phoneme probability, quantified by phoneme surprisal, are significantly stronger than (statistically null) effects of phoneme-by-phoneme lexical uncertainty, quantified by cohort entropy. In contrast, we find robust effects of both cohort entropy and phoneme surprisal during perception of connected speech, with a significant interaction between the contexts. This dissociation rules out models of word recognition in which phoneme surprisal and cohort entropy are common indicators of a uniform process, even though these closely related information-theoretic measures both arise from the probability distribution of wordforms consistent with the input. We propose that phoneme surprisal effects reflect automatic access of a lower level of representation of the auditory input (e.g., wordforms) while the occurrence of cohort entropy effects is task sensitive, driven by a competition process or a higher-level representation that is engaged late (or not at all) during the processing of single words.

Indexed as

auditory word recognitioncohort entropycontinuous speechlexical accesslexical processingmagnetoencephalographyphoneme surprisaltemporal response function

Identifiers

PMID37229141
PMCPMC10205071

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.