Skip to main content

Speech Sequencing: The Hidden Architecture Behind Human Fluency

New research reveals how a little-known brain region may help transform thoughts. William A. Haseltine Ph.D. Best Practices in Health Posted July 28, 2025 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

Key points

  • Speaking fluently involves organizing the precise sequence of sounds required to say words.

  • A brain region called the middle precentral gyrus appears to play a key role in organizing sequences of sound.

  • Disrupting this region causes stuttering, hesitations, or speech errors.

Every day, we speak thousands of words, without rehearsal or hesitation. We order coffee. We soothe a child. We describe a memory, tell a joke, argue, confess, comfort, persuade. To us, speech feels as natural as breathing. Yet from the brain’s perspective, it is anything but simple.

New research published in Nature Human Behaviour suggests that speech fluency rests on an intricate, moment-to-moment system for sequencing sounds in the correct order. This process is so seamless that we rarely notice it, unless something goes wrong. But inside the brain, a specialized region is working tirelessly to prepare each syllable, line them up, and deliver them at just the right time.

This region, the middle precentral gyrus, is a little-known fold of brain tissue tucked in the frontal lobe. It may be the key to why our speech flows like a symphony, instead of crumbling into a clatter of broken notes.

Thought Is Not Enough

To speak is not merely to have a thought. It is to turn that thought into motions: tiny, precise muscular movements of the lips, tongue, vocal cords, jaw, and diaphragm. These parts must dance together, millisecond by millisecond, to produce even a simple word. What comes first? What comes next? How long should each syllable last?

This coordination is what scientists call speech-motor sequencing. This study reveals the middle precentral gyrus, or the mPrCG, to be its architect.

Using recordings from 14 patients undergoing brain monitoring, the researchers asked participants to say short syllable sequences. As people prepared to speak, the researchers saw something surprising: the mPrCG lit up not just during speech, but long before it began. The more complex the sequence, the longer it stayed active, quietly assembling the motor instructions before a single word escaped the lips.

In a sense, the mPrCG was acting like a conductor before the orchestra plays, scanning the musical score and preparing each cue. It was not producing the sound itself. It was preparing the order of operations.

A Glitch in the Machine

But how do we know this region isn’t just reacting to speech, rather than preparing it? To test this, the researchers directly stimulated the mPrCG with gentle electrical currents while participants spoke.

The results were immediate. People who had just spoken fluently a moment before began to pause, stumble, or say syllables in the wrong order. Some dragged out their speech, others inserted unintended gaps.

But when asked to simply repeat “ba-ba-ba,” their speech was perfect. The breakdowns only appeared when the sequence required coordination. It’s like a pianist flawlessly playing a single note but fumbling when asked for a short melody. The hands are fine. The memory is intact. But the choreography is lost.

Interestingly, the mPrCG is located near regions involved in reading and writing. Some patients with damage in this area struggle not only with speaking, but also with forming written sentences or reading aloud. This hints at a deeper principle: the brain may use a shared sequencing system for many types of expression: spoken, written, gestured. Whether you’re typing a text or delivering a toast, the same basic architecture might help you organize your thoughts into a meaningful sequence.

What this research shows is that fluency is not a given. It is constructed, second by second, by systems that work in silence. When those systems fail or falter, the result isn’t just noise; it’s disconnection.

People with speech disorders often describe knowing exactly what they want to say but being unable to unlock the words. This study suggests a clear reason why: The neural blueprint for speech, assembled in the mPrCG, has been disrupted. ​​

Understanding this system could pave the way for better tools to support people with stuttering, aphasia, or other speech coordination challenges. Even for fluent speakers, it offers a reminder: slowing down and practicing articulation may help reinforce the very sequencing networks that make speech possible.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Rewriting the Map of Speech

For over a century, scientists have looked for the “speech center” in the brain. What this study suggests is that there is no single center. Instead, speech arises from a community of brain regions, each with its own role. Some regions select the words. Others control the lips or vocal cords. But the mPrCG appears to do something uniquely human: sequence our intentions into actions.

In daily life, we rarely notice this machinery. But perhaps we should. Because it reminds us of something profound: fluency is not a gift, it is an act of construction. Every sentence we speak is the result of a hidden chain of decisions, prepared and executed with remarkable precision. And when that chain is disrupted, we glimpse the delicate scaffolding beneath our most human act.

What makes our speech powerful is not just vocabulary; it is structure. Without sequencing, there is no fluency. Without fluency, we are left alone with our thoughts, unable to share the stories that make us who we are. Recognizing this hidden complexity can deepen our empathy for those who struggle to speak, and remind us to be patient, whether with others or ourselves, when the words don’t come easily.

References

Liu, J. R., Zhao, L., Hullett, P. W., & Chang, E. F. (2025). Speech sequencing in the human precentral gyrus. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-18.

Register Now for the Annual Meeting Teacher Workshop!

Register Now for the Annual Meeting Teacher Workshop!

From hip hop narratives to veterans’ oral histories, and from teaching with sound to identifying bias in the archive, Local Learning works collaboratively with partners across the nation to engage, inspire, and inform learners by integrating oral history, ethnographic, and sound primary sources into classrooms through the Teaching with Primary Sources (TPS) program. TPS is […]

Funny Literal Illustrations Of English Idioms And Their Meanings.

When we use language we don’t often notice what some words mean if taken literally, but when you actually pause for a second and think about what some expressions literally mean-https://thelanguagener

From The MARVELOUS Language Nerds: https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/funny-literal-illustrations-of-english-idioms-and-their-meanings/

—and—you’d be surprised how you didn’t notice that before. The words that we use every day are so full of joy and wonder and a lot of fun if taken out of context and played with.

That’s what Roisin Hahessy did. Roisin loves to play with words and put them in humorous illustrations to show their double meanings. For her last project, she went after idioms and everyday expressions to illustrate their literal meanings and the result is a funny batch of witty and funny illustrations that make you both laugh and wonder about the craziness of the English language.

MORE TO COME! WATCH FOR THEM!

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

English language pushes everyone – even AI chatbots – to improve by adding

English language pushes everyone – even AI chatbots – to improve by adding

What if the English language—and by extension, the AI trained on it—encouraged us to make things more complicated than they need to be? A fascinating study from the University of Birmingham, highlighted by the World Economic Forum, explores how both humans and large language models like ChatGPT tend to prefer “adding” over “subtracting” when improving text. This subtle bias toward elaboration isn’t just a cognitive quirk—it’s a linguistic one. And it may be shaping how we write, translate, and communicate, often in ways we don’t notice. For language professionals, this raises an important question: when AI suggests edits, is it helping us clarify—or just adding noise?

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

A linguistic bias in the English language that leads us to ‘improve’ things by adding to them, rather than taking away, is so common that it is even ingrained in AI chatbots, a new study reveals.

Language related to the concept of ‘improvement’ is more closely aligned with addition, rather than subtraction. This can lead us to make decisions which can overcomplicate things we are trying to make better.

The study is published in Cognitive Science, by an international research team from the Universities of Birmingham, Glasgow, Potsdam, and Northumbria University.

Dr Bodo Winter, Associate Professor in Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Birmingham said: “Our study builds on existing research which has shown that when people seek to make improvements, they generally add things.

“We found that the same bias is deeply embedded in the English language. For example, the word ‘improve’ is closer in meaning to words like ‘add’ and ‘increase’ than to ‘subtract’ and ‘decrease’, so when somebody at a meeting says, ‘Does anybody have ideas for how we could improve this?,’ it will already, implicitly, contain a call for improving by adding rather than improving by subtracting.”

The research also finds that other verbs of change like ‘to change’, ‘to modify’, ‘to revise’ or ‘to enhance’ behave in a similar way, and if this linguistic addition bias is left unchecked, it can make things worse, rather than improve them. For example, improving by adding rather than subtracting can make bureaucracy become excessive.

This bias works in reverse as well. Addition-related words are more frequent and more positive in ‘improvement’ contexts rather than subtraction-related words, meaning this addition bias is found at multiple levels of English language structure and use.

The bias is so ingrained that even AI chatbots have it built in. The researchers asked GPT-3, the predecessor of ChatGPT, what it thought of the word ‘add’. It replied: “The word ‘add’ is a positive word. Adding something to something else usually makes it better. For example, if you add sugar to your coffee, it will probably taste better. If you add a new friend to your life, you will probably be happier.”

Dr Winter concludes: “The positive addition bias in the English language is something we should all be aware of. It can influence our decisions and mean we are pre-disposed to add more layers, more levels, more things when in fact we might actually benefit from removing or simplifying.

“Maybe next time we are asked at work, or in life, to come up with suggestions on how to make improvements, we should take a second to consider our choices for a bit longer.”

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Is “Is” Always Capitalized in Titles?

Chicago Manual / August 24, 2021 Updated August 12, 2025

CMOS 8.160 in the Spotlight

A key feature of any style is how it capitalizes words in the titles of books, articles, and other works. Most recommend a variation of title case, or what CMOS until very recently referred to as headline style (before the publication of the 18th edition).

And though there are some differences among the major styles—for example, AP and APA capitalize prepositions of four letters or more in a title, whereas for Chicago it’s now five or more—they all specify an initial capital for verbs, regardless of length.

This includes the word “is,” as in the song title “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do” (Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield, 1962).* When such a title is mentioned in ordinary text or in a source citation, there are generally no exceptions (see CMOS 13.89). But there are some nuances to consider, including some graphical contexts where it may be appropriate to leave “is” lowercase.

“Is” in Title Case

“Is” is a mere linking verb, the textual equivalent of an equals sign—and it’s only two letters long. So it’s an easy word to forget to capitalize.

Nor does “is” appear all that frequently in titles, considering its ubiquity in ordinary prose. When it is used, it’s sometimes contracted, which is a good way of minimizing its impact. Take the title of the iconic movie It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Without the contraction, and particularly with a capital I, the emphasis would shift toward the verb: It Is a Wonderful Life.

“Is” is spelled out in the title of the 1997 movie Life Is Beautiful (a translation from the original Italian), so it gets a capital I in Chicago style. But the word is de-emphasized in the poster art for the theatrical release. Notice how the movie’s title is in caps and small caps except for the word “is,” which is in all small caps—and in a smaller font than any of the other letters in the title:

That works well: “Life” and “Beautiful” are the words that matter most.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Consider also the cover for Sue Grafton’s novel Y Is for Yesterday (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2017):**

The connecting words “is” and “for” are both lowercase, which allows the more important elements in the title (namely the Y’s) to stand out. (The preposition “for” would be lowercase in Chicago and most other styles.) In Grafton’s title—as in each of the titles mentioned in this post—“is” plays more of a supporting than a leading role.

A lowercase “is” like the one on the Grafton cover, where the small i alone signals that the word is unimportant, would be unlikely to make it past Chicago’s editorial team. But our publications tend to be scholarly in nature; in fiction and other creative contexts, rules are made to be broken.

What’s the Verdict?

“Is” is a verb, so unless it’s hiding behind a contraction, it should always be capitalized in titles mentioned in the text or in a Chicago-style source citation. But it’s a humble little word that doesn’t always like to stand out. In a graphical setting like a book cover or a movie poster, bigger isn’t necessarily better.


* Note that “Up” is an adverb, not a preposition, in the title phrase “Breaking Up”—and therefore capitalized (see also CMOS 8.160, rule 3).

The subheads in this post are in title case, but sentence case is also an option for subheads, provided it’s consistently applied across a document (see CMOS 2.22 and 8.159).

Wikipedia’s entry for Life Is Beautiful, as of August 23, 2021 (the day before this post was originally published), mentioned or cited that title twenty-eight times (up to and including the bibliography); in thirteen of those instances—or nearly half—the word “is” was spelled with a small i. Apparently, it’s natural to want to lowercase “is” in a title. (As of July 27, 2025, most of these had been fixed.) Such inconsistency isn’t a problem with the Italian title—La vita è bella—where sentence case (and, by extension, lowercase for è, “is”) is the norm (see CMOS 11.8).

** According to CMOS 7.67, letters used as letters are normally italicized (as when mentioned in text). Ditto for “Yesterday,” a word used as a word—which, according to CMOS 7.66, would normally be set in either italics or quotation marks. In an italic title, however, these distinctions are unnecessary (see CMOS 8.175).

Top image: Life Is Beautiful, by Linnaea Mallette (public domain).

Does history really show people in a bad light? Or do people do bad things that we might be able to learn from?

Does history really show people in a bad light? Or do people do bad things that we might be able to learn from?

The Texas Historical Society posts “Texas Day by Day”, with a short post about something that happened on that particular date, sometime in Texas History. On June 20, they posted:

Texas senator delivers speech against martial law

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

June 20th, 1870

On this day in 1870, Texas senator Marmion Bowers delivered a speech opposing Governor Edmund Davis’s newly legislated right to declare martial law. Bowers was born in Indiana in 1829 and moved to Texas in 1853. By November 1856, he was practicing law in Austin, where he was at one time in partnership with Alexander Stuart Walker. He served in the Confederate army during the Civil War until he was elected to the Tenth Texas Legislature (1863-64). In 1869 he was elected to the Texas Senate, where he served until his death. There he opposed Republican attempts to restore order to the state through the use of force. Governor Davis’s declarations of martial law and his use of the militia and state police in Madison, Hill, Walker, Limestone, and Freestone counties were some of the most controversial Reconstruction-era measures. Bowers died in Austin in 1872.

YOU GO, MARMION! Right? Especially in 2025, when martial law is on everybody’s mind—this guy stood up to it!

Well, not so fast.

According to the another article by Texas Historical Society:

In 1870 anarchy prevailed across much of Texas despite years of military occupation. The Radical Republican-dominated Twelfth Legislature approved sweeping anticrime measures proposed by Governor Edmund J. Davis.

Crucial components, such as the State Police and state militia, brought criticism to Davis and his supporters. These instruments of order also brought the administration into conflict with localities even as Davis tried to protect key political constituencies and solicit the support of those who viewed him with suspicion.

A major challenge to Davis’s authority followed the murder of Walker County freedman Sam Jenkins in December 1870. Jenkins had testified against several whites in a case of assault, and his corpse appeared along a road outside Huntsville several days later. An investigation by State Police Capt. Leander H. McNelly led to the arrest of four whites: Nathaniel Outlaw, Joseph Wright, Fred Parks, and John McParrish. With tensions high, state district judge J. R. Burnett acquitted Parks, finding the others guilty on January 11, 1871. Before the men could be escorted to jail, gunfire broke out in the courtroom, and both Wright and McParrish escaped with the aid of Huntsville citizens. Outlaw failed to escape and was taken into custody by the State Police.

The East Texas Historical Journal offers another article “Defying Davis: The Walker County Rebellion, 1871 Ricky F. Dobbs.”

He has a startling assessment:

It seems that by compartmentalizing nuggets of history, the Texas Historical Society avoids angering deep red Republican Texas, and presents a pretty skewed perspective on Texas history. Someone famous once said something to the effect that “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it.” Charles Santayana actually said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeating it.”

It certainly seems like we repeat history no matter what we know about it. We re-elected Donald Trump. World War I was followed by Word War II a mere 20 years later.

But obscuring history is not just.

Here’s a quote from Wikipedia about William Dunning and his view of the Reconstruction Era in Texas:

Historian Eric Foner, a leading specialist in the Reconstruction Era, said of the Dunning School academics:

The traditional or Dunning School of Reconstruction was not just an interpretation of history. It was part of the edifice of the Jim Crow System. It was an explanation for and justification of taking the right to vote away from black people on the grounds that they completely abused it during Reconstruction. It was a justification for the white South resisting outside efforts in changing race relations because of the worry of having another Reconstruction. All of the alleged horrors of Reconstruction helped to freeze the minds of the white South in resistance to any change whatsoever. And it was only after the Civil Rights revolution swept away the racist underpinnings of that old view—i.e., that black people are incapable of taking part in American democracy—that you could get a new view of Reconstruction widely accepted. For a long time it was an intellectual straitjacket for much of the white South, and historians have a lot to answer for in helping to propagate a racist system in this country.[2]

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.