ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Are you talking to me? How the choice of speech register impacts listeners' hierarchical encoding of speech.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- Neural encoding of infant-directed speech during infants' first year of life.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Speech Neurophysiology in Realistic Contexts: Big Hype or Big Leap?The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speakers accommodate their speech to meet the needs of their listeners, producing different speech registers. One such register is L2 Accommodation (L2A), which is the way native speakers address non-native listeners, typically characterized by features such as slow speech rate and phonetic exaggeration. Here, we investigated how register impacts the cortical encoding of speech at different levels of language integration. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that enhanced comprehension of L2A compared with Native Directed Speech (NDS) involves more than just a slower speech rate, influencing speech processing from acoustic to semantic levels. Electroencephalography (EEG) signals were recorded from Spanish native listeners, who were learning English (L2 learners), and English native listeners (L1 listeners) as they were presented with audio-stories. Speech was presented in English in three different speech registers: L2A, NDS, and a control register (Slow-NDS) which is a slowed down version of NDS. We measured the cortical encoding of acoustic, phonological, and semantic information with a multivariate temporal response function analysis (TRF) on the EEG signals. We found that L2A promoted L2 learners' cortical encoding at all the levels of speech and language processing considered. First, L2A led to a more pronounced encoding of the speech envelope. Second, phonological encoding was more refined when listening to L2A, with phoneme perception getting closer to that of L1 listeners. Finally, L2A also enhanced the TRF-N400, a neural signature of semantic integration. Conversely, L2A impacted acoustic but not linguistic speech encoding in L1 listeners. In contrast, slow-NDS altered the cortical encoding of sound acoustics in L1 listeners but did not impact semantic or phonological encoding. Taken together, these results support our hypothesis that L2A accommodates speech processing in L2 listeners beyond what can be achieved by simply speaking slowly, impacting the cortical encoding of sound and language at different abstraction levels. In turn, this study provides objective metrics that are sensitive to the impact of register on the hierarchical encoding of speech, which could be extended to other registers and cohorts.
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.