ArticleeNeuro
Expertise Modulates Neural Stimulus-Tracking.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Audiovisual integration in reading among school-aged children: Evidence from combined fMRI and EEG.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Narrative 'twist' shifts within-individual neural representations of dissociable story features.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How does the brain anticipate information in language? When people perceive speech, low-frequency (<10 Hz) activity in the brain synchronizes with bursts of sound and visual motion. This phenomenon, called cortical stimulus-tracking, is thought to be one way that the brain predicts the timing of upcoming words, phrases, and syllables. In this study, we test whether stimulus-tracking depends on domain-general expertise or on language-specific prediction mechanisms. We go on to examine how the effects of expertise differ between frontal and sensory cortex. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from human participants who were experts in either sign language or ballet, and we compared stimulus-tracking between groups while participants watched videos of sign language or ballet. We measured stimulus-tracking by computing coherence between EEG recordings and visual motion in the videos. Results showed that stimulus-tracking depends on domain-general expertise, and not on language-specific prediction mechanisms. At frontal channels, fluent signers showed stronger coherence to sign language than to dance, whereas expert dancers showed stronger coherence to dance than to sign language. At occipital channels, however, the two groups of participants did not show different patterns of coherence. These results are difficult to explain by entrainment of endogenous oscillations, because neither sign language nor dance show any periodicity at the frequencies of significant expertise-dependent stimulus-tracking. These results suggest that the brain may rely on domain-general predictive mechanisms to optimize perception of temporally-predictable stimuli such as speech, sign language, and dance.
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.