Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28257585›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2017

Increased Response to Altered Auditory Feedback in Dyslexia: A Weaker Sensorimotor Magnet Implied in the Phonological Deficit.

Mark R van den Bunt, Margriet A Groen, Takayuki Ito, Ana A Francisco, Vincent L Gracco, Ken R Pugh, Ludo Verhoeven

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Do Not Cut Off Your Tail: A Mega-Analysis of Responses to Auditory Perturbation Experiments.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Mark R van den BuntBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Margriet A GroenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Takayuki ItoHaskins Laboratories, Yale University, New Haven, CTUniversité Grenoble Alpes, GIPSA-Lab, Grenoble, FranceCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Grenoble Images Parole Signal Automatique (GIPSA) Lab, Grenoble, France.
Ana A FranciscoBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Vincent L GraccoHaskins Laboratories, Yale University, New Haven, CTCentre for Research on Brain, Language & Music, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Ken R PughHaskins Laboratories, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Ludo VerhoevenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Google (United States) · USHaskins Laboratories · USMcGill University · CARadboud University Nijmegen · NLYale University · US

Funding

Visual word identification: phonology &morphologyP01HD001994 · NICHD · HASKINS LABORATORIES, INC. · PI MENCL, EINAR · 1985 to 2016
$23.5M
Tracking neurocognitive changes during evidence-based reading instruction in typically and atypically developing childrenR37HD090153 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Kenneth R. Pugh · 2017 to 2026
$6.0M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD001994NICHD NIH HHS R37 HD090153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether developmental dyslexia (DD) is characterized by deficiencies in speech sensory and motor feedforward and feedback mechanisms, which are involved in the modulation of phonological representations. Method: A total of 42 adult native speakers of Dutch (22 adults with DD; 20 participants who were typically reading controls) were asked to produce /bep/ while the first formant (F1) of the /e/ was not altered (baseline), increased (ramp), held at maximal perturbation (hold), and not altered again (after-effect). The F1 of the produced utterance was measured for each trial and used for statistical analyses. The measured F1s produced during each phase were entered in a linear mixed-effects model. Results: Participants with DD adapted more strongly during the ramp phase and returned to baseline to a lesser extent when feedback was back to normal (after-effect phase) when compared with the typically reading group. In this study, a faster deviation from baseline during the ramp phase, a stronger adaptation response during the hold phase, and a slower return to baseline during the after-effect phase were associated with poorer reading and phonological abilities. Conclusion: The data of the current study are consistent with the notion that the phonological deficit in DD is associated with a weaker sensorimotor magnet for phonological representations.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensoryPhoneticsSpeechSpeech PerceptionAdaptation, PsychologicalDyslexiaFemaleHumansLanguage TestsLinear ModelsMalePsychophysicsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28257585
PMCPMC5544192
OpenAlexW2592041847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.