The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive Top-Down Integration of Prior Knowledge during Speech Perception
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“while posterior temporal cortex appears to track changes in sensory detail (Sohoglu et al., 2012) and predictability (Gagnepain et al., 2012).”
From Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations (2017) · cites this paper as Sohoglu et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations (2017) · cites this paper as Sohoglu et al., 2012
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
The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120 · cited 4×
“After time averaging, F tests were performed across sensor space while controlling the FWE rate using random field theory (Kilner and Friston, 2010).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe cortical organization of speech processing
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2113 · Cited by 5,495
Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/4580 · Cited by 5,483 · cited 2×
“…al., 2002; van Wassenhove et al., 2005; Alink et al., 2010; Arnal et al., 2011), proposes that top-down predictions are compared with incoming sensory input and only unexplained activity (or error) propagated through the remainder of the processing hierarchy (Rao and Ballard, 1999; Friston, 2010).”
BackgroundCummins, R., & Fodor, J. A. (1985) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184717 · Cited by 4,791
Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details.
Pascual-Marqui, R. D. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 3,329
Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues
Shannon, R., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.303 · Cited by 3,302
The TRACE model of speech perception
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 · Cited by 3,044
Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907309 · Cited by 2,583 · cited 1×
“Speech perception is an ideal context in which to study integration effects because in everyday listening we constantly exploit prior information—such as a speaker’s lip movements or semantic context—to interpret incoming speech signals (Sumby, 1954; Miller and Isard, 1963).”
BackgroundUsing confidence intervals in within-subject designs
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03210951 · Cited by 2,433
Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I. (1993) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.162 · Cited by 2,003
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Items 101–101 of 101
Gendron, M., Mesquita, B., & Barrett, L. F. (2020) · Culture, Mind, and Brain · doi:10.1017/9781108695374.010 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P., & Davis, M. H.
- Affiliations
- MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2012-06-20
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 8443-8453
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6620994
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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