ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015
Withholding planned speech is reflected in synchronized beta-band oscillations.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Concise Language Paradigm (CLaP), a framework for studying the intersection of comprehension and production: electrophysiological properties.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- Aberrant neurophysiological signaling associated with speech impairments in Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2023Article
- Timing in Conversation.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- The interplay between selective and nonselective inhibition during single word production.PloS one · 2018Article
- Selective Attention Enhances Beta-Band Cortical Oscillation to Speech under "Cocktail-Party" Listening Conditions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When engaged in a conversation, speakers sometimes have to withhold a planned response, for example, before it is their turn to speak. In the present study, using magnetoencephalography (MEG) outside of a conversational setting, we investigate the oscillatory brain mechanisms involved in the process of withholding a planned verbal response until it is time to speak. Our participants viewed a sequence of four random consonant strings and one pseudoword, which they had to pronounce when the fifth string (the imperative stimulus) was presented. The pseudoword appeared either as the fourth or fifth stimulus in the sequence, creating two conditions. In the withhold condition, the pseudoword was the fourth string and the verbal response was withheld until the imperative stimulus was presented. In the control condition, the fifth string was the pseudoword, so no response was withheld. We compared oscillatory responses to the withhold relative to the control condition in the time period preceding speech. Alpha-beta power (8-30 Hz) decreased over occipital sensors in the withhold condition relative to the control condition. Source-level analysis indicated a posterior source (i.e., occipital cortex) associated with the alpha-beta power decreases. This occipital alpha-beta desynchronization likely reflects attentional allocation to the upcoming imperative stimulus. Moreover, beta (12-20 Hz) power increased over frontal sensors. Source-level analysis indicated a frontal source (i.e., middle and superior frontal gyri) associated with the beta-power increases. We interpret the frontal beta synchronization to reflect a mechanism aiding the maintenance of the current motor or cognitive state. Our results provide a window into a possible oscillatory mechanism implementing the ability of speakers to withhold a planned verbal response until they have to speak.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.