Cited by 388Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchNeuroscience and Music Perception

Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception

Open access
Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P., Davis, M. H.·2012·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

A striking feature of human perception is that our subjective experience depends not only on sensory information from the environment but also on our prior knowledge or expectations. The precise mechanisms by which sensory information and prior knowledge are integrated remain unclear, with longstanding disagreement concerning whether integration is strictly feedforward or whether higher-level knowledge influences sensory processing through feedback connections. Here we used concurrent EEG and MEG recordings to determine how sensory information and prior knowledge are integrated in the brain during speech perception. We manipulated listeners' prior knowledge of speech content by presenting matching, mismatching, or neutral written text before a degraded (noise-vocoded) spoken word. When speech conformed to prior knowledge, subjective perceptual clarity was enhanced. This enhancement in clarity was associated with a spatiotemporal profile of brain activity uniquely consistent with a feedback process: activity in the inferior frontal gyrus was modulated by prior knowledge before activity in lower-level sensory regions of the superior temporal gyrus. In parallel, we parametrically varied the level of speech degradation, and therefore the amount of sensory detail, so that changes in neural responses attributable to sensory information and prior knowledge could be directly compared. Although sensory detail and prior knowledge both enhanced speech clarity, they had an opposite influence on the evoked response in the superior temporal gyrus. We argue that these data are best explained within the framework of predictive coding in which sensory activity is compared with top-down predictions and only unexplained activity propagated through the cortical hierarchy.

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.5069-11.2012

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Posterior temporal cortex appears to track changes in sensory detail and predictability.

    “while posterior temporal cortex appears to track changes in sensory detail (Sohoglu et al., 2012) and predictability (Gagnepain et al., 2012).”
  • The negative correlation with left IFG activation is consistent with the deployment of this region for parsing speech in adverse listening conditions, and may reflect the accessing of word meanings and segments to support perception via prior knowledge.

    “The negative correlation with left IFG activation is consistent with the deployment of this region for parsing speech in adverse listening conditions, and may reflect the accessing of word meanings and segments to support perception via prior knowledge (Davis and Johnsrude, 2003;Obleser and Kotz, 2010;Sohoglu et al., 2012;Du et al., 2014).”

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: 1

  1. Hervais-Adelman A, Carlyon RP, Johnsrude IS, Davis MH (2012) Motor regions are recruited for effortful comprehension of noise-vocoded words: evidence from fMRI. Lang Cogn Process. In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P., & Davis, M. H.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-06-20
Volume
32
Issue
25
Pages
8443-8453
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1966247273
Cited by
388
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 4
FWCI
12.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC-A060-5PQ80)
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
speech perception, prior knowledge, top-down feedback, predictive coding, prior expectations, speech clarity, noise-vocoded speech, inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, cortical hierarchy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cerebral Cortex, Cues, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Psychomotor Performance, Speech, Speech Perception, Magnetoencephalography, Knowledge, 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