Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40408314›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Appropriate data segmentation improves speech encoding models: Analysis and simulation of electrophysiological recordings.

Ole Bialas, Edmund C Lalor

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ole BialasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4472-7626
Edmund C LalorDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades, studies modeling the neural processing of continuous, naturalistic, speech provided new insights into how speech and language are represented in the brain. However, the linear encoder models commonly used in such studies assume that the underlying data are stationary, varying to a fixed degree around a constant mean. Long, continuous, neural recordings may violate this assumption leading to impaired model performance. We aimed to examine the effect of non-stationary trends in continuous neural recordings on the performance of linear speech encoding models.

methodsWe used temporal response functions (TRFs) to predict continuous neural responses to speech while splitting the data into segments of varying length, prior to model fitting. Our Hypothesis was that if the data were non-stationary, segmentation should improve model performance by making individual segments approximately stationary. We simulated and predicted stationary and non-stationary recordings to test our hypothesis under a known ground truth and predicted the brain activity of participants who listened to a narrated story, to test our hypothesis on actual neural recordings.

resultsSimulations showed that, for stationary data, increasing segmentation steadily decreased model performance. For non-stationary data however, segmentation initially improved model performance. Modeling of neural recordings yielded similar results: segments of intermediate length (5-15 s) led to improved model performance compared to very short (1-2 s) and very long (30-120 s) segments.

conclusionsWe showed that data segmentation improves the performance of encoding models for both simulated and real neural data and that this can be explained by the fact that shorter segments approximate stationarity more closely. Thus, the common practice of applying encoding models to long continuous segments of data is suboptimal and recordings should be segmented prior to modeling.

Indexed as

BrainElectrophysiological PhenomenaModels, NeurologicalSpeechSpeech PerceptionAdultComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID40408314
PMCPMC12101633

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.