ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2016
Neural processing of amplitude and formant rise time in dyslexia.
Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Neural detection of changes in amplitude rise time in infancy.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate how children with dyslexia weight amplitude rise time (ART) and formant rise time (FRT) cues in phonetic discrimination. Passive mismatch responses (MMR) were recorded for a/ba/-/wa/contrast in a multiple deviant odd-ball paradigm to identify the neural response to cue weighting in 17 children with dyslexia and 17 age-matched control children. The deviant stimuli had either partial or full ART or FRT cues. The results showed that ART did not generate an MMR in either group, whereas both partial and full FRT cues generated MMR in control children while only full FRT cues generated MMR in children with dyslexia. These findings suggest that children, both controls and those with dyslexia, discriminate speech based on FRT cues and not ART cues. However, control children have greater sensitivity to FRT cues in speech compared to children with dyslexia.
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.