ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2026
Decoupling speech processing from time.
Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listeners near-optimally integrate acoustic and semantic cues in spoken word recognition: Evidence from experiments manipulating cue order and reliability.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- From real-time measures to real world differences: New [and old] statistical approaches to individual differences in real-time language processing.Brain research · 2025Review
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
Accurate processing of speech requires that listeners map temporally unfolding input to words. A long-held set of principles describes this process: lexical items are activated immediately and incrementally as speech arrives, perceptual and lexical representations rapidly decay to make room for new information; and lexical entries are temporally structured. In this framework; speech processing is tightly coupled to the temporally unfolding input. However, recent work challenges this: low-level auditory and higher-level lexical representations do not decay and are instead retained over long durations, speech perception may require encapsulated memory buffers, lexical representations are not strictly temporally structured, and listeners can substantially delay lexical access in some circumstances. These findings suggest that current theories and models of word recognition need to be reconceptualized.
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.