ArticleCommunications biology2024
Speech prosody enhances the neural processing of syntax.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling audio dynamics using hierarchical assisted K-means model for structured speaker profiling in TED talks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Syntactic and Prosodic Phrasal Alignment in Naturalistic Language.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Dynamic network dysregulation in post-stroke aphasia: analysis of dALFF and dynamic functional connectivity.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- An interpretable, clinically grounded framework for digital speech biomarker development in neurodegenerative diseases.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- How Low-Frequency Neural Activity Structures Language in Time.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- A distinct set of brain areas process prosody-the melody of speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Seeing speech: Neural mechanisms of cued speech perception in prelingually deaf and hearing users.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Language-specific neural dynamics extend syntax into the time domain.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Aligning statistical models with inference goals in the neuroscience of language: A dual-dependency taxonomy.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human language relies on the correct processing of syntactic information, as it is essential for successful communication between speakers. As an abstract level of language, syntax has often been studied separately from the physical form of the speech signal, thus often masking the interactions that can promote better syntactic processing in the human brain. However, behavioral and neural evidence from adults suggests the idea that prosody and syntax interact, and studies in infants support the notion that prosody assists language learning. Here we analyze a MEG dataset to investigate how acoustic cues, specifically prosody, interact with syntactic representations in the brains of native English speakers. More specifically, to examine whether prosody enhances the cortical encoding of syntactic representations, we decode syntactic phrase boundaries directly from brain activity, and evaluate possible modulations of this decoding by the prosodic boundaries. Our findings demonstrate that the presence of prosodic boundaries improves the neural representation of phrase boundaries, indicating the facilitative role of prosodic cues in processing abstract linguistic features. This work has implications for interactive models of how the brain processes different linguistic features. Future research is needed to establish the neural underpinnings of prosody-syntax interactions in languages with different typological characteristics.
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.