Trial reportScientific reports2019
Sex differences in early sensorimotor processing for speech discrimination.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender effect on Psychoacoustical abilities and Speech perception in noise in individuals with Sickle cell anemia.Journal of otology · 2025Article
- The Relationship Between Social Skills and Sensory Profile, Emotion Regulation, and Empathizing/Systemizing in Adolescents on the Autism Spectrum.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Speech-in-noise testing: Innovative applications for pediatric patients, underrepresented populations, fitness for duty, clinical trials, and remote services.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Review
- An auditory processing advantage enables communication in less complex social settings: Signs of an extreme female brain in children and adolescents being assessed for Autism Spectrum Disorders.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- The Application of EEG Mu Rhythm Measures to Neurophysiological Research in Stuttering.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensorimotor activity in speech perception tasks varies as a function of context, cognitive load, and cognitive ability. This study investigated listener sex as an additional variable. Raw EEG data were collected as 21 males and 21 females discriminated /ba/ and /da/ in quiet and noisy backgrounds. Independent component analyses of data from accurately discriminated trials identified sensorimotor mu components with characteristic alpha and beta peaks from 16 members of each sex. Time-frequency decompositions showed that in quiet discrimination, females displayed stronger early mu-alpha synchronization, whereas males showed stronger mu-beta desynchronization. Findings indicate that early attentional mechanisms for speech discrimination were characterized by sensorimotor inhibition in females and predictive sensorimotor activation in males. Both sexes showed stronger early sensorimotor inhibition in noisy discrimination conditions versus in quiet, suggesting sensory gating of the noise. However, the difference in neural activation between quiet and noisy conditions was greater in males than females. Though sex differences appear unrelated to behavioral accuracy, they suggest that males and females exhibit early sensorimotor processing for speech discrimination that is fundamentally different, yet similarly adaptable to adverse conditions. Findings have implications for understanding variability in neuroimaging data and the male prevalence in various neurodevelopmental disorders with inhibitory dysfunction.
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.