Abstract
Prior knowledge facilitates perception and allows us to interpret our sensory environment. However, the neural mechanisms underlying this process remain unclear. Theories of predictive coding propose that feedback connections between cortical levels carry predictions about upcoming sensory events whereas feedforward connections carry the error between the prediction and the sensory input. Although predictive coding has gained much ground as a viable mechanism for perception, in the context spoken language comprehension it lacks empirical support using more naturalistic stimuli. In this study, we investigated theories of predictive coding using continuous, everyday speech. EEG recordings from human participants listening to an audiobook were analysed using a 2-stage regression framework. This tested the effect of top-down linguistic information, estimated using computational language models, on the bottom-up encoding of acoustic and phonetic speech features. Our results show enhanced encoding of both semantic predictions and surprising words, based on preceding context. This suggests that signals pertaining to prediction and error units can be observed in the same electrophysiological responses to natural speech. In addition, temporal analysis of these signals reveals support for theories of predictive coding that propose that perception is first biased towards what is expected followed by what is informative.
Significance Statement Over the past two decades, predictive coding has grown in popularity as an explanatory mechanism for perception. However, there has been lack of empirical support for this theory in research studying natural speech comprehension. We address this issue by developing an analysis framework that tests the effects of top-down linguistic information on the auditory encoding of continuous speech. Our results provide evidence for the co-existence of prediction and error signals and support theories of predictive coding using more naturalistic stimuli.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.