Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the Possible Role of Brain Rhythms in Speech Perception: Intelligibility of Time-Compressed Speech with Periodic and Aperiodic Insertions of Silence

Ghitza, Oded, Greenberg, Steven·2009·Phonetica

Abstract

This study was motivated by the prospective role played by brain rhythms in speech perception. The intelligibility – in terms of word error rate – of natural-sounding, synthetically generated sentences was measured using a paradigm that alters speech-energy rhythm over a range of frequencies. The material com-prised 96 semantically unpredictable sentences, each approximately 2 s long (6–8 words per sentence), generated by a high-quality text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis engine. The TTS waveform was time-compressed by a factor of 3, creating a signal with a syllable rhythm three times faster than the original, and whose intel-ligibility is poor (<50% words correct). A waveform with an artificial rhythm was produced by automatically segmenting the time-compressed waveform into consecutive 40-ms fragments, each followed by a silent interval. The parameters varied were the length of the silent interval (0–160 ms) and whether the lengths of silence were equal (‘periodic’) or not (‘aperiodic’). The performance curve (word error rate as a function of mean duration of silence) was U-shaped. The lowest word error rate (i.e., highest intelligibility) occurred when the silence was 80 ms long and inserted periodically. This is also the condition for which word error rate increased when the silence was inserted aperiodically. These data are consistent with a model (TEMPO) in which low-frequency brain rhythms affect the ability to decode the speech signal. In TEMPO, optimum intelligibility is achieved when the syllable rhythm is within the range of the high theta-frequency brain rhythms (6–12 Hz), comparable to the rate at which segments and syllables are articulated in conversational speech.

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 · 10.1159/000208934

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Ghitza, O., & Greenberg, S.
Venue
Phonetica
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
66
Issue
1-2
Pages
113-126
ISSN
  • 0031-8388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0321
OpenAlex
W2083315447
Cited by
298
References
3
FWCI
9.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: On the Possible Role of Brain Rhythms in Speech Perception: Intelligibility of Time-Compressed Speech with Periodic and Aperiodic Insertions of Silence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000208934
The paper
Ghitza, O., & Greenberg, S. (2009). On the Possible Role of Brain Rhythms in Speech Perception: Intelligibility of Time-Compressed Speech with Periodic and Aperiodic Insertions of Silence. Phonetica. https://doi.org/10.1159/000208934

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.