ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
Reverse Hierarchical Processing of Speech in Talker Identification.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction to "Reverse Hierarchical Processing of Speech in Talker Identification".The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Reverse Hierarchical Processing of Speech in Talker Identification.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spoken language contains critical information related to "what" is being said as well as "who" is talking. Listeners use various cues from speech to identify talkers. Talkers can be identified primarily based on acoustic cues, but access to higher-level cues depends on the extent of language familiarity. Do listeners have greater processing costs when there is a greater number of cues available? Or do listeners leverage cues in a reverse hierarchical manner, using higher-level cues more strategically to reduce processing costs? Here, we leveraged multiple methodological approaches, including pupillometry, analysis of the behavioral error pattern, and drift diffusion models (DDMs), to examine the dynamics of how learners identify novel talkers and accrue sensory evidence, balance cue usage, and manage processing costs during talker identity learning. Native English-speaking adults learned to identify talkers in English and Mandarin, then were tested on recognizing them speaking new sentences, all while their pupillary responses, a proxy for processing cost, were recorded. Talker identification was more accurate and induced less pupil dilation in English relative to Mandarin. Analysis of error patterns showed that listeners relied more heavily on low-level acoustic features in Mandarin than English, and DDMs revealed that higher evidence accumulation rates were associated with smaller pupil dilation. These findings suggest that, whenever available, listeners primarily use higher-level abstract representations to identify talkers from the beginning of the learning process while relying on less efficient, lower-level features of speech sounds in unfamiliar languages, consistent with the predictions of the reverse hierarchical framework.
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.