ArticleScientific reports2020
The brain tracks auditory rhythm predictability independent of selective attention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Musical tension is affected by metrical structure dynamically and hierarchically.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Short-Term Effect of Auditory Stimulation on Neural Activities: A Scoping Review of Longitudinal Electroencephalography and Magnetoencephalography Studies.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Probing Beat Perception with Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) in Human Adults, Newborns, and Nonhuman Primates.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Attentional modulation of beta-power aligns with the timing of behaviorally relevant rhythmic sounds.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The brain responds to violations of expected rhythms, due to extraction- and prediction of the temporal structure in auditory input. Yet, it is unknown how probability of rhythm violations affects the overall rhythm predictability. Another unresolved question is whether predictive processes are independent of attention processes. In this study, EEG was recorded while subjects listened to rhythmic sequences. Predictability was manipulated by changing the stimulus-onset-asynchrony (SOA deviants) for given tones in the rhythm. When SOA deviants were inserted rarely, predictability remained high, whereas predictability was lower with more frequent SOA deviants. Dichotic tone-presentation allowed for independent manipulation of attention, as specific tones of the rhythm were presented to separate ears. Attention was manipulated by instructing subjects to attend to tones in one ear only, while keeping the rhythmic structure of tones constant. The analyses of event-related potentials revealed an attenuated N1 for tones when rhythm predictability was high, while the N1 was enhanced by attention to tones. Bayesian statistics revealed no interaction between predictability and attention. A right-lateralization of attention effects, but not predictability effects, suggested potentially different cortical processes. This is the first study to show that probability of rhythm violation influences rhythm predictability, independent of attention.
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.