Event-related potentials reflect prediction errors and pop-out during comprehension of degraded speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comprehension of degraded speech requires higher-order expectations informed by prior knowledge. Accurate top-down expectations of incoming degraded speech cause a subjective semantic ‘pop-out’ or conscious breakthrough experience. Indeed, the same stimulus can be perceived as meaningless when no expectations are made in advance. We investigated the event-related potential (ERP) correlates of these top-down expectations, their error signals and the subjective pop-out experience in healthy participants. We manipulated expectations in a word-pair priming degraded (noise-vocoded) speech task and investigated the role of top-down expectation with a between-groups attention manipulation. Consistent with the role of expectations in comprehension, repetition priming significantly enhanced perceptual intelligibility of the noise-vocoded degraded targets for attentive participants. An early ERP was larger for mismatched (i.e. unexpected) targets than matched targets, indicative of an initial error signal not reliant on top-down expectations. Subsequently, a P3a-like ERP was larger to matched targets than mismatched targets only for attending participants—i.e. a pop-out effect—while a later ERP was larger for mismatched targets and did not significantly interact with attention. Rather than relying on complex post hoc interactions between prediction error and precision to explain this apredictive pattern, we consider our data to be consistent with prediction error minimization accounts for early stages of processing followed by Global Neuronal Workspace-like breakthrough and processing in service of task goals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".