Linguistic Bias Modulates Interpretation of Speech via Neural Delta-Band Oscillations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language comprehension requires that single words be grouped into syntactic phrases, as words in sentences are too many to memorize individually. In speech, acoustic and syntactic grouping patterns mostly align. However, when ambiguous sentences allow for alternative grouping patterns, comprehenders may form phrases that contradict speech prosody. While delta-band oscillations are known to track prosody, we hypothesized that linguistic grouping bias can modulate the interpretational impact of speech prosody in ambiguous situations, which should surface in delta-band oscillations when grouping patterns chosen by comprehenders differ from those indicated by prosody. In our auditory electroencephalography study, the interpretation of ambiguous sentences depended on whether an identical word was either followed by a prosodic boundary or not, thereby signaling the ending or continuation of the current phrase. Delta-band oscillatory phase at the critical word should reflect whether participants terminate a phrase despite a lack of acoustic boundary cues. Crossing speech prosody with participants' grouping choice, we observed a main effect of grouping choice-independent of prosody. An internal linguistic bias for grouping words into phrases can thus modulate the interpretational impact of speech prosody via delta-band oscillatory phase.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it