ArticleeNeuro2024
Neural Tracking of Speech Acoustics in Noise Is Coupled with Lexical Predictability as Estimated by Large Language Models.
Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adults heard recordings of two spatially separated speakers reading newspaper and magazine articles. They were asked to listen to one of them and ignore the other, and EEG was recorded to assess their neural processing. Machine learning extracted neural sources that tracked the target and distractor speakers at three levels: the acoustic envelope of speech (delta- and theta-band modulations), lexical frequency for individual words, and the contextual predictability of individual words estimated by GPT-4 and earlier lexical models. To provide a broader view of speech perception, half of the subjects completed a simultaneous visual task, and the listeners included both native and non-native English speakers. Distinct neural components were extracted for these levels of auditory and lexical processing, demonstrating that native English speakers had greater target-distractor separation compared with non-native English speakers on most measures, and that lexical processing was reduced by the visual task. Moreover, there was a novel interaction of lexical predictability and frequency with auditory processing; acoustic tracking was stronger for lexically harder words, suggesting that people listened harder to the acoustics when needed for lexical selection. This demonstrates that speech perception is not simply a feedforward process from acoustic processing to the lexicon. Rather, the adaptable context-sensitive processing long known to occur at a lexical level has broader consequences for perception, coupling with the acoustic tracking of individual speakers in noise.
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.