Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28400266›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2017

EEG Mu (µ) rhythm spectra and oscillatory activity differentiate stuttering from non-stuttering adults.

Tim Saltuklaroglu, Ashley W Harkrider, David Thornton, David Jenson, Tiffani Kittilstved

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Stuttering: A Disorder of Energy Supply to Neurons?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Functional and Neuroanatomical Bases of Developmental Stuttering: Current Insights.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Tim SaltuklarogluUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Ashley W HarkriderUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. Electronic address: aharkrid@uthsc.edu.
David ThorntonUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
David JensonUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Tiffani KittilstvedUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.

Funding

Real-time differences in sensorimotor integration for speech perception between stuttering and non-stuttering populationsR21DC014506 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCI CTR · PI SALTUKLAROGLU, TIM · 2015 to 2016
$418k
NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC014506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stuttering is linked to sensorimotor deficits related to internal modeling mechanisms. This study compared spectral power and oscillatory activity of EEG mu (μ) rhythms between persons who stutter (PWS) and controls in listening and auditory discrimination tasks. EEG data were analyzed from passive listening in noise and accurate (same/different) discrimination of tones or syllables in quiet and noisy backgrounds. Independent component analysis identified left and/or right μ rhythms with characteristic alpha (α) and beta (β) peaks localized to premotor/motor regions in 23 of 27 people who stutter (PWS) and 24 of 27 controls. PWS produced μ spectra with reduced β amplitudes across conditions, suggesting reduced forward modeling capacity. Group time-frequency differences were associated with noisy conditions only. PWS showed increased μ-β desynchronization when listening to noise and early in discrimination events, suggesting evidence of heightened motor activity that might be related to forward modeling deficits. PWS also showed reduced μ-α synchronization in discrimination conditions, indicating reduced sensory gating. Together these findings indicate spectral and oscillatory analyses of μ rhythms are sensitive to stuttering. More specifically, they can reveal stuttering-related sensorimotor processing differences in listening and auditory discrimination that also may be influenced by basal ganglia deficits.

Indexed as

Brain WavesAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAuditory PerceptionDiscrimination, PsychologicalElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensory GatingSpeech PerceptionStutteringYoung AdultElectroencephalographyInternal modelingMu (μ) rhythmSensorimotor integrationStuttering

Identifiers

PMID28400266
PMCPMC5569894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.