Cited by 235Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchNeuroscience and Music Perception

Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex

Open access
Gagnepain, Pierre, Henson, Richard N., Davis, Matthew H.·2012·Current Biology

Abstract

Humans can recognize spoken words with unmatched speed and accuracy. Hearing the initial portion of a word such as "formu…" is sufficient for the brain to identify "formula" from the thousands of other words that partially match. Two alternative computational accounts propose that partially matching words (1) inhibit each other until a single word is selected ("formula" inhibits "formal" by lexical competition) or (2) are used to predict upcoming speech sounds more accurately (segment prediction error is minimal after sequences like "formu…"). To distinguish these theories we taught participants novel words (e.g., "formubo") that sound like existing words ("formula") on two successive days. Computational simulations show that knowing "formubo" increases lexical competition when hearing "formu…", but reduces segment prediction error. Conversely, when the sounds in "formula" and "formubo" diverge, the reverse is observed. The time course of magnetoencephalographic brain responses in the superior temporal gyrus (STG) is uniquely consistent with a segment prediction account. We propose a predictive coding model of spoken word recognition in which STG neurons represent the difference between predicted and heard speech sounds. This prediction error signal explains the efficiency of human word recognition and simulates neural responses in auditory regions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.015

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Davis, Matthew H.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
615-621
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043090466
Cited by
235
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
spoken word recognition, predictive coding, lexical competition, auditory cortex, superior temporal gyrus, novel words, prediction error signal
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Cortex, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Speech, Speech Perception, Time Factors, Magnetoencephalography, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review