Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37944313›Full record

ArticleCognition2024

Contra assertions, feedback improves word recognition: How feedback and lateral inhibition sharpen signals over noise.

James S Magnuson, Anne Marie Crinnion, Sahil Luthra, Phoebe Gaston, Samantha Grubb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Simple Recurrent Networks are Interactive.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

James S MagnusonUniversity of Connecticut. Storrs, CT, USA; BCBL. Basque Center on Cognition Brain and Language, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain; Ikerbasque. Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain. Electronic address: james.magnuson@uconn.edu.
Anne Marie CrinnionUniversity of Connecticut. Storrs, CT, USA.
Sahil LuthraCarnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Phoebe GastonUniversity of Connecticut. Storrs, CT, USA.
Samantha GrubbUniversity of Connecticut. Storrs, CT, 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
Mechanisms of auditory selective attention for speech and non-speech stimuliF32DC020625 · NIDCD · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI LUTHRA, SAHIL · 2022 to 2025
$197k
Understanding Individual Differences in Acoustic-Phonetic and Contextual Cue Use In AgingF31DC021372 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI CRINNION, ANNE MARIE · 2023 to 2024
$95k
NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC021372NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC020625NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether top-down feedback modulates perception has deep implications for cognitive theories. Debate has been vigorous in the domain of spoken word recognition, where competing computational models and agreement on at least one diagnostic experimental paradigm suggest that the debate may eventually be resolvable. Norris and Cutler (2021) revisit arguments against lexical feedback in spoken word recognition models. They also incorrectly claim that recent computational demonstrations that feedback promotes accuracy and speed under noise (Magnuson et al., 2018) were due to the use of the Luce choice rule rather than adding noise to inputs (noise was in fact added directly to inputs). They also claim that feedback cannot improve word recognition because feedback cannot distinguish signal from noise. We have two goals in this paper. First, we correct the record about the simulations of Magnuson et al. (2018). Second, we explain how interactive activation models selectively sharpen signals via joint effects of feedback and lateral inhibition that boost lexically-coherent sublexical patterns over noise. We also review a growing body of behavioral and neural results consistent with feedback and inconsistent with autonomous (non-feedback) architectures, and conclude that parsimony supports feedback. We close by discussing the potential for synergy between autonomous and interactive approaches.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionFeedbackLanguageNoiseComputational modelsLanguage processingNeural NetworksSpoken word recognition

Identifiers

PMID37944313
PMCPMC11238470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.