ArticleHearing research2020
Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing only partially explain higher prevalence of language disorders in males.
Article in Hearing research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bilingual Exposure and Sex Shape Developmental Trajectories of Brain Responses to Speech-Sound Features in Infants.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Age and sex differences in speech FFR suggest early central auditory aging.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Sex differences in vocal learning ability in songbirds are linked with differences in flexible rhythm pattern perception.Animal behaviour · 2023Article
- Athleticism and sex impact neural processing of sound.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Sex differences in auditory processing vary across estrous cycle.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Non-stimulus-evoked activity as a measure of neural noise in the frequency-following response.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2021Article
- Children's Ability to Identify and Describe Dysphonia: A Multimethod Study.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Males and females differ in their subcortical evoked responses to sound. For many evoked response measures, the sex difference is driven by a faster developmental decline of auditory processing in males. Using the frequency-following response (FFR), an evoked potential that reflects predominately midbrain processing of stimulus features, sex differences were identified in the response to the temporal envelope of speech. The pattern of later and smaller responses in males versus females is consistent with two of the three response features that track with language development and reading abilities. Therefore, here we analyzed subcortical response consistency, the third distinguishing feature of language ability. Furthermore, though the envelope is primarily a low-frequency response, the greatest sex differences were observed in harmonics encoding. To better understand these sex differences, we extended these findings to the temporal fine structure response, which is biased to high-frequency information. Using the same 516 participants as previously reported (Krizman et al., 2019), we analyzed the effect of sex across development on response consistency and the encoding of temporal fine structure, as indexed by the subtracted frequency-following response. We found that while males and females did not differ on response consistency, there was an effect of age on this measure. Moreover, while males still showed a faster decline in harmonic encoding, the magnitude and breadth of the sex differences were smaller (accounting for 2% variance) in the temporal fine structure response compared to the envelope response. These results suggest that sex differences are distinct, at least in part, from the differences that underlie language abilities and that developmental sex differences reflect subcortical auditory processing differences of both the temporal envelope and fine structure of sounds.
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.