Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32390816›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Speech-Induced Suppression for Delayed Auditory Feedback in Adults Who Do and Do Not Stutter.

Akira Toyomura, Daiki Miyashiro, Shinya Kuriki, Paul F Sowman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT07215884 phase1recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Dopamine and Sensorimotor Function in Stuttering

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2025 to 2027Enrolled25ConditionsStuttering, AdultArmsAripiprazole 10 MG, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.Neuropsychology review · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Spatiotemporal Mapping of Auditory Onsets during Speech Production.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  3. DIVA Meets EEG: Model Validation Using Formant-Shift Reflex.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Akira ToyomuraGraduate School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan.
Daiki MiyashiroFaculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan.
Shinya KurikiFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan.
Paul F SowmanDepartment of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

auditory evoked potentialsdelayed auditory feedbackEEGspeech-induced suppressionstuttering

Identifiers

PMID32390816
PMCPMC7193705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.