Does Semantic Context Benefit Speech Understanding through “Top–Down” Processes? Evidence from Time-resolved Sparse fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When speech is degraded, word report is higher for semantically coherent sentences (e.g., her new skirt was made of denim) than for anomalous sentences (e.g., her good slope was done in carrot). Such increased intelligibility is often described as resulting from "top-down" processes, reflecting an assumption that higher-level (semantic) neural processes support lower-level (perceptual) mechanisms. We used time-resolved sparse fMRI to test for top-down neural mechanisms, measuring activity while participants heard coherent and anomalous sentences presented in speech envelope/spectrum noise at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). The timing of BOLD responses to more intelligible speech provides evidence of hierarchical organization, with earlier responses in peri-auditory regions of the posterior superior temporal gyrus than in more distant temporal and frontal regions. Despite Sentence content × SNR interactions in the superior temporal gyrus, prefrontal regions respond after auditory/perceptual regions. Although we cannot rule out top-down effects, this pattern is more compatible with a purely feedforward or bottom-up account, in which the results of lower-level perceptual processing are passed to inferior frontal regions. Behavioral and neural evidence that sentence content influences perception of degraded speech does not necessarily imply "top-down" neural processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".