Cited by 42Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchNeuroscience and Music Perception

Two distinct auditory-motor circuits for monitoring speech production as revealed by content-specific suppression of auditory cortex

Open access
Ylinen, Sari, Nora, Anni, Leminen, Alina, Hakala, Tero, Huotilainen, Minna, Shtyrov, Yury, Mäkelä, Jyrki P., Service, Elisabet·2015·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Speech production, both overt and covert, down-regulates the activation of auditory cortex. This is thought to be due to forward prediction of the sensory consequences of speech, contributing to a feedback control mechanism for speech production. Critically, however, these regulatory effects should be specific to speech content to enable accurate speech monitoring. To determine the extent to which such forward prediction is content-specific, we recorded the brain's neuromagnetic responses to heard multisyllabic pseudowords during covert rehearsal in working memory, contrasted with a control task. The cortical auditory processing of target syllables was significantly suppressed during rehearsal compared with control, but only when they matched the rehearsed items. This critical specificity to speech content enables accurate speech monitoring by forward prediction, as proposed by current models of speech production. The one-to-one phonological motor-to-auditory mappings also appear to serve the maintenance of information in phonological working memory. Further findings of right-hemispheric suppression in the case of whole-item matches and left-hemispheric enhancement for last-syllable mismatches suggest that speech production is monitored by 2 auditory-motor circuits operating on different timescales: Finer grain in the left versus coarser grain in the right hemisphere. Taken together, our findings provide hemisphere-specific evidence of the interface between inner and heard speech.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bht351

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Ylinen et al. (2015) found that audible syllables concordant with participants' inner speech elicited less MEG activity than discordant syllables.

    “The results revealed that audible syllables that were concordant with participants’ inner speech elicited less MEG activity than discordant syllables, a result which is broadly consistent with the results of the present study.”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Ylinen et al., 2015

  • In the current protocol, the trigger line refreshed every 8.3 ms, which presumably enabled participants to time the onset of their inner phoneme more accurately than countdown sequences, mental rehearsal, or open temporal windows used in previous studies.

    “In the current protocol, the position of the trigger line refreshed every 8.3 ms, which presumably enabled participants to time the onset of their inner phoneme far more accurately than would be possible with a countdown sequence, mental rehearsal or open temporal window, such as have been used in previous studies (Tian and Poeppel, 2013; Ford et al., 2001b; Ylinen et al., 2015).”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Ylinen et al., 2015

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: 2

  1. Baddeley AD. 1986. Working memory. Oxford (UK): Clarendon Press.
  2. Mäkelä JP. 2007. Chapter 25: Magnetoencephalography (auditory evoked fields). In: Burkard RF, Eggermont JJ, Don M, editors. Audi- tory evoked potentials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 525-545.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ylinen, S., Nora, A., Leminen, A., Hakala, T., Huotilainen, M., Shtyrov, Y., Mäkelä, J. P., & Service, E.
Affiliations
  • Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
Corresponding author
Ylinen, Sari
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2014-01-09
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
1576-1586
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2102439446
Cited by
42
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Finland (110230, 131963)
  • Lundbeckfonden (R140‐2013‐12951)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (00001)
  • Medical Research Council (MC-A060-5PQ90)
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
forward prediction, phonological working memory, hemispheric lateralization, phonological mapping, pseudowords, neuromagnetic responses, inner speech
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Auditory Cortex, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Functional Laterality, Male, Neural Pathways, Photic Stimulation, Speech, Speech Perception, Speech Production Measurement, Magnetoencephalography, 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