Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27381836›Full record

ReviewTrends in neurosciences2016

Roles of Supplementary Motor Areas in Auditory Processing and Auditory Imagery.

César F Lima, Saloni Krishnan, Sophie K Scott

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in neurosciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Neural network retuning and neural predictors of learning success associated with cello training.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

César F LimaInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.
Saloni KrishnanDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophie K ScottInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: sophie.scott@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 090961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas have been intensely investigated in relation to their motor functions, they are also consistently reported in studies of auditory processing and auditory imagery. This involvement is commonly overlooked, in contrast to lateral premotor and inferior prefrontal areas. We argue here for the engagement of supplementary motor areas across a variety of sound categories, including speech, vocalizations, and music, and we discuss how our understanding of auditory processes in these regions relate to findings and hypotheses from the motor literature. We suggest that supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas play a role in facilitating spontaneous motor responses to sound, and in supporting a flexible engagement of sensorimotor processes to enable imagery and to guide auditory perception.

Indexed as

AnimalsAuditory PerceptionHumansImaginationMotor ActivityMotor Cortexauditory imageryauditory processingmusicsensorimotor mechanismsspeechsupplementary motor area

Identifiers

PMID27381836
PMCPMC5441995

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.