Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42003985›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

Semantics and syntax effects on event-related fields during speech comprehension: a MEG study.

Natalia Zhozhikashvili, Olga V Sysoeva, Elizaveta Makarova, Olga V Martynova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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.

Natalia ZhozhikashviliLaboratory for Cognitive Research, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Olga V SysoevaLaboratory of Human Higher Nervous Activity, Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia.
Elizaveta MakarovaLaboratory of Human Higher Nervous Activity, Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia.
Olga V MartynovaLaboratory of Human Higher Nervous Activity, Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding how the brain processes language during natural speech comprehension remains a key challenge. This study tested the feasibility of using an event-related field (ERF) approach to examine the spatiotemporal distribution of brain activity evoked during continuous speech comprehension. Methods: We used MEG and cluster-based permutation analysis of ERFs to examine how semantic dissimilarity and word class modulate neural responses during continuous speech comprehension. Results: Words with high semantic dissimilarity elicited a late ERF effect at left temporal sensors (616-666 ms). This effect remained robust after controlling for word duration and subsequent words. Function words elicited an early ERF (166-312 ms) at left parieto-temporal sensors and a later effect (470-654 ms) at temporal sensors. Discussion: The late effect for words with high semantic dissimilarity may be linked to P600-like activity or other late semantic integration processes. The early and late effects for function words may reflect syntactic processing and the prediction of upcoming words. Together, these findings suggest that semantic dissimilarity and word class differentially shape the temporal dynamics of ERFs during natural speech comprehension.

Indexed as

auditory perceptionevent-related fieldsMEGnatural speech comprehensionsemantic dissimilarityword class

Identifiers

PMID42003985
PMCPMC13083212

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.