Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25589447›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Attention modulates cortical processing of pitch feedback errors in voice control.

Huijing Hu, Ying Liu, Zhiqiang Guo, Weifeng Li, Peng Liu, Shaozhen Chen, Hanjun Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. DIVA Meets EEG: Model Validation Using Formant-Shift Reflex.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Top-Down Modulation of Auditory-Motor Integration during Speech Production: The Role of Working Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Huijing Hu1] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080 [2] Guangdong Provincial Work Injury Rehabilitation Center, Guangzhou, China 510440.
Ying LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080.
Zhiqiang GuoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510006.
Weifeng LiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080.
Peng LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080.
Shaozhen ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080.
Hanjun Liu1] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510080 [2] Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 510006.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considerable evidence has shown that unexpected alterations in auditory feedback elicit fast compensatory adjustments in vocal production. Although generally thought to be involuntary in nature, whether these adjustments can be influenced by attention remains unknown. The present event-related potential (ERP) study aimed to examine whether neurobehavioral processing of auditory-vocal integration can be affected by attention. While sustaining a vowel phonation and hearing pitch-shifted feedback, participants were required to either ignore the pitch perturbations, or attend to them with low (counting the number of perturbations) or high attentional load (counting the type of perturbations). Behavioral results revealed no systematic change of vocal response to pitch perturbations irrespective of whether they were attended or not. At the level of cortex, there was an enhancement of P2 response to attended pitch perturbations in the low-load condition as compared to when they were ignored. In the high-load condition, however, P2 response did not differ from that in the ignored condition. These findings provide the first neurophysiological evidence that auditory-motor integration in voice control can be modulated as a function of attention at the level of cortex. Furthermore, this modulatory effect does not lead to a general enhancement but is subject to attentional load.

Indexed as

AttentionAuditory CortexBehaviorEvoked PotentialsFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMental ProcessesPitch PerceptionTask Performance and AnalysisVoiceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25589447
PMCPMC4295089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.