MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094511876 · doi:10.1093/nc/niaa022

Event-related potentials reflect prediction errors and pop-out during comprehension of degraded speech

2020· article· en· W3094511876 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience of Consciousness · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsComprehensionEvent (particle physics)Event-related potentialSpeech recognitionSpeech errorComputer scienceCognitive psychologyNatural language processingPsychologyLinguisticsAudiologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceSpeech productionElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it