Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 220

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discrimination of Speech Stimuli Based on Neuronal Response Phase Patterns Depends on Acoustics But Not Comprehension

Open access
Howard, Mary F., Poeppel, David·2010·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Speech stimuli give rise to neural activity in the listener that can be observed as waveforms using magnetoencephalography. Although waveforms vary greatly from trial to trial due to activity unrelated to the stimulus, it has been demonstrated that spoken sentences can be discriminated based on theta-band (3–7 Hz) phase patterns in single-trial response waveforms. Furthermore, manipulations of the speech signal envelope and fine structure that reduced intelligibility were found to produce correlated reductions in discrimination performance, suggesting a relationship between theta-band phase patterns and speech comprehension. This study investigates the nature of this relationship, hypothesizing that theta-band phase patterns primarily reflect cortical processing of low-frequency (<40 Hz) modulations present in the acoustic signal and required for intelligibility, rather than processing exclusively related to comprehension (e.g., lexical, syntactic, semantic). Using stimuli that are quite similar to normal spoken sentences in terms of low-frequency modulation characteristics but are unintelligible (i.e., their time-inverted counterparts), we find that discrimination performance based on theta-band phase patterns is equal for both types of stimuli. Consistent with earlier findings, we also observe that whereas theta-band phase patterns differ across stimuli, power patterns do not. We use a simulation model of the single-trial response to spoken sentence stimuli to demonstrate that phase-locked responses to low-frequency modulations of the acoustic signal can account not only for the phase but also for the power results. The simulation offers insight into the interpretation of the empirical results with respect to phase-resetting and power-enhancement models of the evoked response.

Overview

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 · 10.1152/jn.00251.2010

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 220

Metadata

Authors
Howard, M. F., & Poeppel, D.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2010-11
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
2500-2511
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2147779031
Cited by
220
References
2
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrimination of Speech Stimuli Based on Neuronal Response Phase Patterns Depends on Acoustics But Not Comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.00251.2010
The paper
Howard, M. F., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Discrimination of Speech Stimuli Based on Neuronal Response Phase Patterns Depends on Acoustics But Not Comprehension. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00251.2010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.