Cited by 108Hearing Loss and RehabilitationTactile and Sensory InteractionsNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations

Open access
Eisner, Frank, McGettigan, Carolyn, Faulkner, Andrew, Rosen, Stuart, Scott, Sophie K.·2010·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

This study investigated the neural plasticity associated with perceptual learning of a cochlear implant (CI) simulation. Normal-hearing listeners were trained with vocoded and spectrally shifted speech simulating a CI while cortical responses were measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). A condition in which the vocoded speech was spectrally inverted provided a control for learnability and adaptation. Behavioral measures showed considerable individual variability both in the ability to learn to understand the degraded speech, and in phonological working memory capacity. Neurally, left-lateralized regions in superior temporal sulcus and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) were sensitive to the learnability of the simulations, but only the activity in prefrontal cortex correlated with interindividual variation in intelligibility scores and phonological working memory. A region in left angular gyrus (AG) showed an activation pattern that reflected learning over the course of the experiment, and covariation of activity in AG and IFG was modulated by the learnability of the stimuli. These results suggest that variation in listeners' ability to adjust to vocoded and spectrally shifted speech is partly reflected in differences in the recruitment of higher-level language processes in prefrontal cortex, and that this variability may further depend on functional links between the left inferior frontal gyrus and angular gyrus. Differences in the engagement of left inferior prefrontal cortex, and its covariation with posterior parietal areas, may thus underlie some of the variation in speech perception skills that have been observed in clinical populations of CI users.

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.4040-09.2010

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Effects of prior knowledge and training on the processing of sine-wave speech and similar stimuli are reflected in the greater involvement of inferior frontal cortex, pre-supplementary motor area, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

    “Effects of prior knowledge and training on the processing of SWS and similar stimuli are reflected in the greater involvement of inferior frontal cortex (Davis and Johnsrude, 2003), pre-SMA, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Eisner et al., 2010;Rosen et al., 2011), while posterior temporal cortex appears to track changes in sensory detail (Sohoglu et al., 2012) and predictability (Gagnepain et”

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
Eisner, F., McGettigan, C., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., & Scott, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2010-05-26
Volume
30
Issue
21
Pages
7179-7186
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2145440176
Cited by
108
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (090961, WT074414MA, 074414)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
cochlear implant simulation, perceptual learning, inferior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus, prefrontal cortex, individual differences, phonological working memory, neuroplasticity, vocoded speech, speech intelligibility, superior temporal sulcus, posterior parietal cortex
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Cochlear Implants, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Individuality, Functional Laterality, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Noise, Oxygen, Predictive Value of Tests, Semantics, Sound Spectrography, Spectrum Analysis, Speech Perception, 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