Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38442171›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Diverging neural dynamics for syntactic structure building in naturalistic speaking and listening.

Laura Giglio, Markus Ostarek, Daniel Sharoh, Peter Hagoort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Characterizing Verb Argument Structure in Aphasia Using Dependency Parsers.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Building hierarchically nested structure by rapid neural sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neural encoding of semantic structures during sentence production.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Lexical Surprisal Shapes the Time Course of Syntactic Structure Building.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  19. 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.

Laura GiglioMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen 6525XD, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5369-4331
Markus OstarekMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen 6525XD, The Netherlands.
Daniel SharohMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen 6525XD, The Netherlands.
Peter HagoortMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen 6525XD, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7280-7549

Funding

Max Planck Society n/aNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) 024.001.006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The neural correlates of sentence production are typically studied using task paradigms that differ considerably from the experience of speaking outside of an experimental setting. In this fMRI study, we aimed to gain a better understanding of syntactic processing in spontaneous production versus naturalistic comprehension in three regions of interest (BA44, BA45, and left posterior middle temporal gyrus). A group of participants (n = 16) was asked to speak about the events of an episode of a TV series in the scanner. Another group of participants (n = 36) listened to the spoken recall of a participant from the first group. To model syntactic processing, we extracted word-by-word metrics of phrase-structure building with a top-down and a bottom-up parser that make different hypotheses about the timing of structure building. While the top-down parser anticipates syntactic structure, sometimes before it is obvious to the listener, the bottom-up parser builds syntactic structure in an integratory way after all of the evidence has been presented. In comprehension, neural activity was found to be better modeled by the bottom-up parser, while in production, it was better modeled by the top-down parser. We additionally modeled structure building in production with two strategies that were developed here to make different predictions about the incrementality of structure building during speaking. We found evidence for highly incremental and anticipatory structure building in production, which was confirmed by a converging analysis of the pausing patterns in speech. Overall, this study shows the feasibility of studying the neural dynamics of spontaneous language production.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingMental RecallHumansLanguageSoftwareSpeechfMRIlanguage comprehensionlanguage productionnaturalisticsyntax

Identifiers

PMID38442171
PMCPMC10945772

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.