ArticleNature communications2024
Convergent neural signatures of speech prediction error are a biological marker for spoken word recognition.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distributed cortical learning through LEC-mediated γ-synchrony.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Sensory sharpening and semantic prediction errors unify competing models of predictive processing in human speech comprehension.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Can prediction error explain predictability effects on the N1 during picture-word verification?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We use MEG and fMRI to determine how predictions are combined with speech input in superior temporal cortex. We compare neural responses to words in which first syllables strongly or weakly predict second syllables (e.g., "bingo", "snigger" versus "tango", "meagre"). We further compare neural responses to the same second syllables when predictions mismatch with input during pseudoword perception (e.g., "snigo" and "meago"). Neural representations of second syllables are suppressed by strong predictions when predictions match sensory input but show the opposite effect when predictions mismatch. Computational simulations show that this interaction is consistent with prediction error but not alternative (sharpened signal) computations. Neural signatures of prediction error are observed 200 ms after second syllable onset and in early auditory regions (bilateral Heschl's gyrus and STG). These findings demonstrate prediction error computations during the identification of familiar spoken words and perception of unfamiliar pseudowords.
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.