MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decoding the temporal dynamics of spoken word and nonword processing from EEG

2022· article· en· W4285404384 on OpenAlexaff
Bob McMurray, McCall E. Sarrett, Samantha Chiu, Alexis K. Black, Alice Wang, Rebecca Canale, Richard Ν. Aslin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyDecoding methodsSpoken languageWord (group theory)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingPsychologyNeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficiency of spoken word recognition is essential for real-time communication. There is consensus that this efficiency relies on an implicit process of activating multiple word candidates that compete for recognition as the acoustic signal unfolds in real-time. However, few methods capture the neural basis of this dynamic competition on a msec-by-msec basis. This is crucial for understanding the neuroscience of language, and for understanding hearing, language and cognitive disorders in people for whom current behavioral methods are not suitable. We applied machine-learning techniques to standard EEG signals to decode which word was heard on each trial and analyzed the patterns of confusion over time. Results mirrored psycholinguistic findings: Early on, the decoder was equally likely to report the target (e.g., baggage) or a similar sounding competitor (badger), but by around 500 msec, competitors were suppressed. Follow up analyses show that this is robust across EEG systems (gel and saline), with fewer channels, and with fewer trials. Results are robust within individuals and show high reliability. This suggests a powerful and simple paradigm that can assess the neural dynamics of speech decoding, with potential applications for understanding lexical development in a variety of clinical disorders.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207