| When there is a flat constraint distribution over an utterance (e.g., when probabilities are uniform over the utterance), the acoustics of speech should naturally be more isochronous (Figures 9A and 3D,E). |
| If speech timing matches the internal language model, brain responses should be more isochronous even if the acoustics are not (Figure 9A). |
| The more similar the internal language models of two speakers, the more effective they are in ‘entraining’ each other’s brain. |
| If speakers suspect their listener to have a flatter constraint distribution than themselves (e.g., the environment is noisy, or the speakers are in a second language context), they adjust to the distribution by speaking more isochronous (Figure 9B). |
| One adjusts the weight of the constraint distribution to a hierarchical level when needed. For example, when there is noise, participants adjust to the rhythm of primary auditory cortex instead of higher order language models. As a consequence, they speak more isochronous. |
| The theoretical account provides various predictions that are listed in this table. |
