ArticleNeuropsychologia2021
Early auditory cortical processing predicts auditory speech in noise identification and lipreading.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of age and noise exposure history on auditory nerve response amplitudes: A systematic review, study, and meta-analysis.Hearing research · 2024Pooled it
- A Direct Auditory Subcortical Route to the Amygdala Associated with Fear in Humans.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Middle-aged CBA/CaJ mice exhibit auditory dysfunction in background noise.Hearing research · 2025Article
- Aging effects on the neural representation and perception of consonant transition cues.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Effects of Age and Noise Exposure History on Auditory Nerve Response Amplitudes: A Systematic Review, Study, and Meta-Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Sensory tetanisation to induce long-term-potentiation-like plasticity: A review and reassessment of the approach.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Review
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
Individuals typically exhibit better cross-sensory perception following unisensory loss, demonstrating improved perception of information available from the remaining senses and increased cross-sensory use of neural resources. Even individuals with no sensory loss will exhibit such changes in cross-sensory processing following temporary sensory deprivation, suggesting that the brain's capacity for recruiting cross-sensory sources to compensate for degraded unisensory input is a general characteristic of the perceptual process. Many studies have investigated how auditory and visual neural structures respond to within- and cross-sensory input. However, little attention has been given to how general auditory and visual neural processing relates to within and cross-sensory perception. The current investigation examines the extent to which individual differences in general auditory neural processing accounts for variability in auditory, visual, and audiovisual speech perception in a sample of young healthy adults. Auditory neural processing was assessed using a simple click stimulus. We found that individuals with a smaller P1 peak amplitude in their auditory-evoked potential (AEP) had more difficulty identifying speech sounds in difficult listening conditions, but were better lipreaders. The results suggest that individual differences in the auditory neural processing of healthy adults can account for variability in the perception of information available from the auditory and visual modalities, similar to the cross-sensory perceptual compensation observed in individuals with sensory loss.
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.