The cortical organization of speech processing

By Gregory Hickok, David Poeppel. 2007

5,135 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Why would Musical Training Benefit the Neural Encoding of Speech? The OPERA Hypothesis (2011, background): “100% superior), in contrast to the usual left hemisphere dominance for spoken language processing (Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; Figure 9).”
NTU-90: A high angular resolution brain atlas constructed by q-space diffeomorphic reconstruction (2011, background): “The size gradually decreases as the fibers approach the gray matter, suggesting that the gyrus (stg), and inferior temporal gyrus (itg); these regions are known to be related to language processing (Hickok and Poeppel, 2007).”
Reconstructing Speech from Human Auditory Cortex (2012, background): “For speech comprehension, it is hypothesized that intermediate and higher-order auditory areas extract or construct information-rich features of speech, while discarding nonessential low-level acoustic information [4,5,9, 10,43].”
Musical training as a framework for brain plasticity: behavior, function, and structure. (2012, background): “Similar models emphasizing interactions between motor and auditory areas have also been suggested for speech (Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; Rauschecker and Scott, 2009).”
Semantic Processing in the Anterior Temporal Lobes: A Meta-analysis of the Functional Neuroimaging Literature (2010, background): “First, some researchers have suggested that the ATL is specialized for the computation of combinatorial meaning (Hickok & Poeppel, 2007).”
Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review (2012, background): “Readers interested in the basic anatomical foundations of intelligible speech perception are referred to review articles by Scott and colleagues (Rauschecker & Scott, 2009; Scott & Johnsrude, 2003), Hickok and Poeppel (2007), and Davis and colleagues (Davis & Gaskell, 2009; Davis & Johnsrude, 2007).”
MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond (2013, background): “As a consequence of the mounting evidence against the classical WLG model, in recent years alternative neurobiological models for language have been proposed (e.g., Friederici, 2002; Hagoort, 2005; Hickok and Poeppel, 2007).”
The role of mirror neurons in speech perception and action word semantics (2010, background): “…favouring the view that there is a tight connection between speech perception and speech production (Doupe & Kuhl, 1999; Galantucci et al., 2006; Hickok & Poeppel, 2007), there is no evidence in support of a strong version of the motor theory of speech perception and good evidence against it.”
The Search for the Phonological Store: From Loop to Convolution (2008, background): “The concept of an auditory–motor interface in the speech domain has been motivated (Hickok & Poeppel, 2000, 2007; Pa & Hickok 2007; Wise et al., 2001), in part, by the discovery of a neural system for sensory–motor integration in the visual system.”
A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading (2012, background): “(Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; Rauschecker and Scott, 2009) and how these streams are supported by anatomy (Saur et al.”