ArticleCommunications biology2025
Hierarchical linguistic predictions and cross-level information updating during narrative comprehension.
Article in Communications biology, 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.
- Linguistics and human brain: a perspective of computational neuroscience.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Review
- Computational Sentence-Level Metrics of Reading Speed and Its Ramifications for Sentence Comprehension.Cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Language comprehension involves the prediction of upcoming linguistic units across multiple timescales. However, how this prediction process is hierarchically implemented in the human brain remains unclear. Combining natural language processing (NLP) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a narrative comprehension task, we first applied the group-based general linear model (gGLM) to identify the neural underpinnings associated with anticipating upcoming words and sentences. Our results revealed a cortical hierarchy supporting linguistic prediction, extending from the superior temporal cortices to the default mode network (DMN). Next, we investigated how the word and sentence levels interact by testing two rival hypotheses: the continuous updating hypothesis posits that higher-level regions are updated continuously as inputs unfold over time, while the sparse updating hypothesis states that higher-level regions are updated only at the boundaries of their preferred timescales. Using computational modeling and autocorrelation analysis, we found that the sparse model outperformed the continuous model, with updating occurred at the sentence boundaries. Together, our results extend evidence for linguistic prediction to longer timescales and elucidate the neurocomputational mechanisms of hierarchical information updating in the human brain.
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.