Cited by 123Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeuroscience and Music Perception

The cortical dynamics of intelligible speech.

Open access
Leff, Alexander P., Schofield, Thomas M., Stephan, Klass E., Crinion, Jennifer T., Friston, Karl J., Price, Cathy J.·2008·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

An important and unresolved question is how the human brain processes speech for meaning after initial analyses in early auditory cortical regions. A variety of left-hemispheric areas have been identified that clearly support semantic processing, although a systematic analysis of directed interactions among these areas is lacking. We applied dynamic causal modeling of functional magnetic resonance imaging responses and Bayesian model selection to investigate, for the first time, experimentally induced changes in coupling among three key multimodal regions that were activated by intelligible speech: the posterior and anterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS and aSTS, respectively) and pars orbitalis (POrb) of the inferior frontal gyrus. We tested 216 different dynamic causal models and found that the best model was a "forward" system that was driven by auditory inputs into the pSTS, with forward connections from the pSTS to both the aSTS and the POrb that increased considerably in strength (by 76 and 150%, respectively) when subjects listened to intelligible speech. Task-related, directional effects can now be incorporated into models of speech comprehension.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.2903-08.2008

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • This average network structure is exactly the winning model from earlier work [17] (based on AIC/BIC approximation of model evidence).

    “This is exactly the winning model from earlier work [17] (based on AIC/BIC approximation of model evidence).”

    From Comparing families of dynamic causal models (2010) · cites this paper as [17]

  • The top-ranked models in the previous study [17] contained significantly fewer modulatory connections than those in this paper: the top 10 models in [17] averaged 2.4 modulatory connections, whereas those in this paper averaged 4.5.

    “One notable difference arising from this distinction is that the top-ranked models in [17] contained significantly fewer connections than those in this paper (one sample t-test, ). The top 10 models in [17] contained an average 2.4 modulatory connections whereas those in this paper contained an average of 4.5.”

    From Comparing families of dynamic causal models (2010) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Using the free energy approximation for model evidence instead of the most conservative of AIC and BIC (as in previous work [17]) resulted in highly ranked models containing significantly more connections than in the previous study.

    “The model evidence for the DCMs fitted in this paper was computed using the free energy approximation whereas previous work used (the most conservative of) AIC and BIC [17]. This resulted in the highly ranked models containing significantly more connections than in the previous study.”

    From Comparing families of dynamic causal models (2010) · cites this paper as [17]

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
Leff, A. P., Schofield, T. M., Stephan, K. E., Crinion, J. T., Friston, K. J., & Price, C. J.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2008-12-03
Volume
28
Issue
49
Pages
13209-13215
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1988979668
Cited by
123
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 22
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (082420, 075765, 056750, 088130)
  • Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
speech understanding, semantic processing, superior temporal sulcus, posterior superior temporal sulcus, pars orbitalis, inferior frontal gyrus, cortical connectivity, dynamic causal modeling, Bayesian model selection, intelligible speech, auditory cortex, left hemisphere
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cues, Dominance, Cerebral, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Language Tests, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Photic Stimulation, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors, Speech Perception, Temporal Lobe, Verbal Behavior, 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