Next-Generation Neural Mass Models Reproduce Features of Speech Processing

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Segregation of speech into syllables is a key step in neural speech processing. It relies on the alignment of neural activity with the rhythmic structure of speech. Two competing hypotheses explain this ‘neural speech tracking’, phase-resetting and evoked responses. While phenomenological modelling of these hypotheses has been successful, we still lack understanding of the underlying cortical circuits. To investigate these mechanisms, we evaluate whether a biophysical next-generation neural mass model can reproduce several features of neural speech tracking, using phenomenological models of the competing hypotheses as algorithmic baselines. We investigate the models’ dynamics with four tests: recreating in-silico an EEG experiment that identified a correlation between tracking strength and phoneme sharpness, computing the Phase Concentration Metric, testing the effect of varying syllabic rates, and evaluating the Inter Event Phase Coherence across phoneme onsets. While all of the models that we study reproduce the sharpness-tuned rhythmic speech tracking, the evoked model requires a pre-processed acoustic edge impulse stimulus. We demonstrate that the neural mass model is performing thresholded phase-resetting triggered by sharp onsets in the continuous speech envelope. This produces cross-frequency nested oscillations that qualitatively match an experimentally-observed dual-peak signature in the Inter Event Phase Coherence. Our results indicate that the biophysical neural mass model provides a mechanistic bridge between generic oscillatory dynamics in cortical populations and the cognitive computations of speech tracking. Indeed, the non-linear dynamics of the neural mass model offer an explanation for how peak-rate event representations in auditory cortex activity arise in response to continuous acoustic input. Significance Statement Syllable segregation is crucial but challenging as natural speech lacks clear boundaries, yet humans perform this computation effortlessly. Speech aligns neural activity to syllabic rhythms, predicting syllable timing, but the underlying cortical mechanisms remain unknown. Relating this macroscopic behaviour to neurobiology is challenging; however, next-generation neural mass models promise to resolve this. We demonstrate that these models reproduce sharpness-tuned tracking and acoustic edge extraction. Dynamical analyses indicate this occurs through thresholded phase-resetting to phoneme onsets, triggering cross-frequency nested oscillations. Our results both advance biophysical understanding of syllable segregation and validate the models’ capacity for simulating macroscopic neural activity. These models offer a bridge between the neurobiology of the auditory cortex and speech processing dynamics that phenomenological models cannot provide.
Full text 2,880 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Segregation of speech into syllables is a key step in neural speech processing. It relies on the alignment of neural activity with the rhythmic structure of speech. Two neurological mechanisms have been suggested: phase-resetting of existing neural oscillations, or evoked responses to acoustic features of the speech signal. From EEG experiment, it is known that a distinct feature of this neural entrainment is that its strength is correlated with phonemes sharpness. Here, we reproduce this EEG experiment in-silico. In particular, we use a bio-physical neural mass model to simulate the neural response to the same near-isochronus, consonant–vowel stimuli as the EEG study. We compare this to the response of two other, phenomenological, models that are designed to represent the proposed mechanisms: one a phase-resetting oscillator, the other an evoked-response filter. The biophysical neural mass model captures population-level oscillations without being tailored to speech. All three models can reproduce the correlation between phoneme sharpness and entrainment strength. While both the phase-resetting and evoked models succeed in reproducing the experimental result, the phase-resetting model is arguably more parsimonious since it does not require the preprocessing the evoked model needs to convert a sound envelope into features. Interestingly, the neural mass model also succeeded, without being tailored to the stimulus, unlike the other two models. For example, it does not respond at a specific stimulus-targeted frequency and it is robust across different parameter settings. Our results suggest that generic oscillatory dynamics in cortical populations may be sufficient to generate sharpness-dependent entrainment to speech. Significance Statement Syllable segregation is a crucial but challenging task as syllables in natural speech lack clear boundaries. Yet human brains perform this task effortlessly. It is known that speech causes alignment of neural activity to the syllabic rhythm, supporting segregation by predicting syllable timing, but the mechanisms responsible are unknown. We explore whether a biophysical neural mass model can recreate an observed sharpness-dependent tuning of this entrainment, and compare to two phenomenological models. Crucially, the neural mass model recreates the phenomenon with little tuning, demonstrating that generic cortical circuit dynamics are sufficient to capture sharpness-dependent entrainment. This biophysical model offers a bridge between the neurobiology of the auditory cortex and the emergent dynamics of speech processing that phenomenological models cannot provide. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no competing interests. https://github.com/Modelling-Speech-Processing/Shannon_et_al

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00