Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41209400›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Differential electroencephalography responses in speech perception between native and non-native speakers.

Luong Do Anh Quan, Le Thi Trang, Inyong Choi, Jihwan Woo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luong Do Anh QuanDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Le Thi TrangDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Inyong ChoiDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Jihwan WooDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Native and non-native listeners rely on different neural strategies when processing speech in their respective native and non-native languages, encoding distinct features of speech from acoustic to linguistic content in different ways. This study investigated differences in neural responses between native English and Korean speaker when they passively listened to speech in their native and non-native languages using electroencephalography. Methods: The study employed two approaches to examine neural responses: Temporal Response Functions (TRFs) measure how the brain tracks continuous speech features (i.e., speech envelope, phoneme onset, phonemic surprisal, and semantic dissimilarity), and Phoneme-Related Potentials (PRPs) assess phonemic-level processes. Results: Non-native speakers showed significantly stronger neural tracking of the speech envelope, but no group differences for higher-level linguistic features within analyses of TRFs. PRP analyses, however, revealed distinct response patterns across phoneme categories, with non-native speakers showing heightened peaks. Conclusion: The results suggest that non-native speakers rely more on bottom-up acoustic cues during passive listening. TRFs and PRPs provide information on neural markers that indicate how speech is processed differently depending on the listener's native language and language experience.

Indexed as

bottom-up acoustic featuresneural trackingpassive listeningphoneme-related potentialtemporal response function

Identifiers

PMID41209400
PMCPMC12592156

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.