ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021
A dual larynx motor networks hypothesis.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging the structural connectome with hybrid MRI-microscopy tractography.Medical image analysis · 2025Article
- The cost of language: functionally over-dominant language circuits in the human brain may limit cognitive abilities and non-verbal executive functions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Mobile brain imaging in butoh dancers: from rehearsals to public performance.BMC neuroscience · 2024Article
- The speech neuroprosthesis.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Review
- The uniqueness of the human brain: a review.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2024Review
- Decoding kinematic information from beta-band motor rhythms of speech motor cortex: a methodological/analytic approach using concurrent speech movement tracking and magnetoencephalography.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Bilateral human laryngeal motor cortex in perceptual decision of lexical tone and voicing of consonant.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Beyond Broca: neural architecture and evolution of a dual motor speech coordination system.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Individual differences in vocal size exaggeration.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Voice modulation: from origin and mechanism to social impact.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Humans are vocal modulators par excellence. This ability is supported in part by the dual representation of the laryngeal muscles in the motor cortex. Movement, however, is not the product of motor cortex alone but of a broader motor network. This network consists of brain regions that contain somatotopic maps that parallel the organization in motor cortex. We therefore present a novel hypothesis that the dual laryngeal representation is repeated throughout the broader motor network. In support of the hypothesis, we review existing literature that demonstrates the existence of network-wide somatotopy and present initial evidence for the hypothesis' plausibility. Understanding how this uniquely human phenotype in motor cortex interacts with broader brain networks is an important step toward understanding how humans evolved the ability to speak. We further suggest that this system may provide a means to study how individual components of the nervous system evolved within the context of neuronal networks. This article is part of the theme issue 'Voice modulation: from origin and mechanism to social impact (Part I)'.
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.