Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26368126›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Effects of Presentation Rate and Attention on Auditory Discrimination: A Comparison of Long-Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials in School-Aged Children and Adults.

Naseem A Choudhury, Jessica A Parascando, April A Benasich

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mismatch Negativity in Children with Deficits in Auditory Abilities.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naseem A ChoudhuryPsychology, SSHS, Ramapo College of New Jersey Mahwah, Mahwah, New Jersey, United States of America; Center for Molecular & Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Jessica A ParascandoCenter for Molecular & Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
April A BenasichCenter for Molecular & Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decoding human speech requires both perception and integration of brief, successive auditory stimuli that enter the central nervous system as well as the allocation of attention to language-relevant signals. This study assesses the role of attention on processing rapid transient stimuli in adults and children. Cortical responses (EEG/ERPs), specifically mismatch negativity (MMN) responses, to paired tones (standard 100-100 Hz; deviant 100-300 Hz) separated by a 300, 70 or 10 ms silent gap (ISI) were recorded under Ignore and Attend conditions in 21 adults and 23 children (6-11 years old). In adults, an attention-related enhancement was found for all rate conditions and laterality effects (L>R) were observed. In children, 2 auditory discrimination-related peaks were identified from the difference wave (deviant-standard): an early peak (eMMN) at about 100-300 ms indexing sensory processing, and a later peak (LDN), at about 400-600 ms, thought to reflect reorientation to the deviant stimuli or "second-look" processing. Results revealed differing patterns of activation and attention modulation for the eMMN in children as compared to the MMN in adults: The eMMN had a more frontal topography as compared to adults and attention played a significantly greater role in childrens' rate processing. The pattern of findings for the LDN was consistent with hypothesized mechanisms related to further processing of complex stimuli. The differences between eMMN and LDN observed here support the premise that separate cognitive processes and mechanisms underlie these ERP peaks. These findings are the first to show that the eMMN and LDN differ under different temporal and attentional conditions, and that a more complete understanding of children's responses to rapid successive auditory stimulation requires an examination of both peaks.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansPitch DiscriminationReaction TimeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26368126
PMCPMC4569142
OpenAlexW2341144810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.