ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020
Speech-Induced Suppression for Delayed Auditory Feedback in Adults Who Do and Do Not Stutter.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07215884 (Dopamine and Sensorimotor Function in Stuttering), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Dopamine and Sensorimotor Function in Stuttering
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.Neuropsychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Spatiotemporal Mapping of Auditory Onsets during Speech Production.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- DIVA Meets EEG: Model Validation Using Formant-Shift Reflex.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Timing of brain entrainment to the speech envelope during speaking, listening and self-listening.Cognition · 2022Article
- A cortical network processes auditory error signals during human speech production to maintain fluency.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Deficit or Difference? Effects of Altered Auditory Feedback on Speech Fluency and Kinematic Variability in Adults Who Stutter.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
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
Speech-induced suppression is the normal, relative amplitude reduction of the auditory evoked potential for self-, compared to externally-generated, auditory stimulation. It remains controversial as to whether adults who stutter exhibit expected auditory modulation during speech; some studies have reported a significant difference between stuttering and fluent groups in speech-induced suppression during speech movement planning, while others have not. We compared auditory evoked potentials (N1 component) for auditory feedback arising from one's own voice (Speaking condition) with passive listening to a recording of one's own voice (Listening condition) in 24 normally-fluent speakers and 16 adults who stutter under various delayed auditory feedback (DAF) time conditions (100 ms, 200 ms, 500 ms, and 1,000 ms). We presented the participant's own voice with a delay, immediately after presenting it without a delay. Our working hypothesis was that the shorter the delay time, the more likely the delayed sound is perceived as self-generated. Therefore, shorter delay time conditions are proposed to result in relatively enhanced suppression of the auditory system. Results showed that in fluent speakers, the shorter the delay time, the more the auditory evoked potential in the Speaking condition tended to be suppressed. In the Listening condition, there was a larger evoked potential with shorter delay times. As a result, speech-induced suppression was only significant at the short delay time conditions of 100 and 200 ms. Adults who stutter did not show the opposing changes in the Speaking and Listening conditions seen in the fluent group. Although the evoked potential in the Listening condition tended to decrease as the delay time increased, that in the Speaking condition did not show a distinct trend, and there was a significant suppression only at 200 ms delay. For the 200 ms delay condition, speakers with more severe stuttering showed significantly greater speech-induced suppression than those with less severe stuttering. This preliminary study suggests our methods for investigating evoked potentials by presenting own voice with a delay may provide a clue as to the nature of auditory modulation in stuttering.
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.