Spoken language is central to human communication, influencing cognition, learning, and social interactions. Despite its spontaneous nature, characterized by disfluencies, fillers, self-corrections and irregular syntax, it effectively serves its communicative purpose. Understanding how the brain processes natural language offers valuable insights into the neurobiology of language.Recent neuroscience advancements allow us to study neural processes in response to ongoing speech, requiring detailed, time-locked descriptions of speech material to capture the nuances of spoken language. While there are many speech-to-text tools available, obtaining a time-locked true verbatim transcript, reflecting everything that was uttered, requires additional effort to achieve an accurate representation.Our work outlines a semi-automatic pipeline for annotating natural speech, developed for German and Hebrew but adaptable to other languages, for creating temporally precise time-courses describing key linguistic features of continuous speech, which can be used to analyze their neural representation and level of processing. We discuss the methodological challenges and opportunities this presents, for improving our understanding of how the brain processes everyday language.

Statistical learning (SL) is hypothesized to play an important role in language development. However, the measures typically used to assess SL, particularly at the level of individual participants, are largely indirect and have low sensitivity. Recently, a neural metric based on frequency-tagging has been proposed as an alternative measure for studying SL. We tested the sensitivity of frequency-tagging measures for studying SL in individual participants in an artificial language paradigm, using non-invasive electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings of neural activity in humans. Importantly, we used carefully constructed controls to address potential acoustic confounds of the frequency-tagging approach, and compared the sensitivity of EEG-based metrics to both explicit and implicit behavioral tests of SL. Group-level results confirm that frequency-tagging can provide a robust indication of SL for an artificial language, above and beyond potential acoustic confounds. However, this metric had very low sensitivity at the level of individual participants, with significant effects found only in 30% of participants. Comparison of the neural metric to previously established behavioral measures for assessing SL showed a significant yet weak correspondence with performance on an implicit task, which was above-chance in 70% of participants, but no correspondence with the more common explicit 2-alternative forced-choice task, where performance did not exceed chance-level. Given the proposed ubiquitous nature of SL, our results highlight some of the operational and methodological challenges of obtaining robust metrics for assessing SL, as well as the potential confounds that should be taken into account when using the frequency-tagging approach in EEG studies.