Cited by 352Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersAction Observation and Synchronization

Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech

Open access
Silbert, Lauren J., Honey, Christopher J., Simony, Erez, Poeppel, David, Hasson, Uri·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Successful verbal communication requires the finely orchestrated interaction between production-based processes in the speaker’s brain and comprehension-based processes in the listener’s brain. Here we first develop a time-warping tool that enables us to map all brain areas reliably activated during the production of real-world speech. The results indicate that speech production is not localized to the left hemisphere but recruits an extensive bilateral network of linguistic and extralinguistic brain areas. We then directly compare the neural responses during speech production and comprehension and find that the two systems respond in similar ways. Our results argue that a shared neural mechanism supporting both production and comprehension facilitates communication and underline the importance of studying comprehension and production within unified frameworks.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1323812111

Cites

113 of 113 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?

  • Dynamic time warping and conditional random fields do not explicitly model event boundaries.

    “However, these methods do not explicitly model event boundaries.”

    From Discovering Event Structure in Continuous Narrative Perception and Memory (2017) · cites this paper as Silbert, Honey, Simony, Poeppel, & Hasson, 2014

    The Time-Warp Analysis section says the paper’s time-warping procedure aligns recordings using similarities between sound waveforms, rather than describing an explicit model of event boundaries. It does not address conditional random fields, so it cannot support that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Speaker-listener coupling in the default mode network, but not early auditory regions, is disrupted when communication is disrupted by speaking nonsense words, telling a story in a language the listener does not understand, or temporally scrambling the stimulus.

    “This study along with further studies revealed that speaker–listener coupling in the DMN, but not early auditory regions, is disrupted when communication is disrupted by either speaking nonsense words86,87, telling a story in a language that the listener does not understand86 or temporally scrambling the stimulus88.”
  • Previous studies provided initial evidence for neural alignment between the speaker's brain during story production and the listener's brain during story comprehension.

    “Previous studies have provided initial evidence for neural alignment (correlated responses in the temporal domain using intersubject correlation) between the responses observed in the speaker's brain during the production of a story and the responses observed in the listener's brain during the comprehension of the story (Stephens et al. 2010; Silbert et al. 2014).”
  • Previous work suggests that during communication, neural responses observed in the listener follow the speaker's neural response timecourses with a delay of a few seconds.

    “Previous work suggests that during communication, neural responses observed in the listener follow the speaker's neural response timecourses with a delay of a few seconds (Stephens et al. 2010; Dikker et al. 2014; Silbert et al. 2014).”
  • This finding extends previous research that showed a positive correlation between communication success and speaker-listener neural coupling in the temporal domain in posterior medial cortex, and is consistent with research showing that higher levels of encoding-to-recall pattern similarity in PCC positively correlate with behavioral memory measures.

    “This finding extends previous research that showed a positive correlation between communication success and speaker–listener neural coupling in the temporal domain (Stephens et al. 2010; Dikker et al. 2014; Silbert et al. 2014) in posterior medial cortex, and is also consistent with research showing that higher levels of encoding-to-recall pattern similarity in PCC positively correlate with”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Federmeier KD, Wlotko EW, Meyer AM (2008) What's "right" in language com- prehension: ERPs reveal right hemisphere language capabilities. Lang Linguist Compass 2(1):1-17.
  2. Eimas PD, Miller JL, Jusczyk PW (1987) On infant speech perception and the acquisition of language. Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition, ed Harnad S (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 161-195.
  3. Dronkers NF, Wilkins DP, Van Valin RD, Redfern BB, Jaeger JJ (1994) A re- consideration of the brain areas involved in the disruption of morphosyntactic comprehension. Brain Lang 47(3):461-463.
  4. Dronkers NF, Redfern BB, Knight RT (2000) The neural architecture of language disorders. The New Cognitive Neurosciences, ed Gazzaniga MS (MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA), pp 949-958.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-09-29
Volume
111
Issue
43
Pages
E4687-96
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2120773224
Cited by
352
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094480)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
speech production, speech understanding, narrative speech, neural coupling, speaker-listener interaction, left hemisphere dominance, natural speech
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurons, Oxygen, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Speech, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Comprehension, Narration, 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