ArticleHuman brain mapping2023
Cortical haemodynamic responses predict individual ability to recognise vocal emotions with uninformative pitch cues but do not distinguish different emotions.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural response to vocal emotional intensity in youth.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Individual abilities to estimate levels of movement synchrony predict action observation network activation.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Awareness of embodiment enhances enjoyment and engages sensorimotor cortices.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Inhibiting responses under the watch of a recently synchronized peer increases self-monitoring: evidence from functional near-infrared spectroscopy.Open biology · 2024Article
- Cortical haemodynamic responses predict individual ability to recognise vocal emotions with uninformative pitch cues but do not distinguish different emotions.Human brain mapping · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the cortical representation of emotional prosody in normal-hearing listeners using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and behavioural assessments. Consistent with previous reports, listeners relied most heavily on F0 cues when recognizing emotion cues; performance was relatively poor-and highly variable between listeners-when only intensity and speech-rate cues were available. Using fNIRS to image cortical activity to speech utterances containing natural and reduced prosodic cues, we found right superior temporal gyrus (STG) to be most sensitive to emotional prosody, but no emotion-specific cortical activations, suggesting that while fNIRS might be suited to investigating cortical mechanisms supporting speech processing it is less suited to investigating cortical haemodynamic responses to individual vocal emotions. Manipulating emotional speech to render F0 cues less informative, we found the amplitude of the haemodynamic response in right STG to be significantly correlated with listeners' abilities to recognise vocal emotions with uninformative F0 cues. Specifically, listeners more able to assign emotions to speech with degraded F0 cues showed lower haemodynamic responses to these degraded signals. This suggests a potential objective measure of behavioural sensitivity to vocal emotions that might benefit neurodiverse populations less sensitive to emotional prosody or hearing-impaired listeners, many of whom rely on listening technologies such as hearing aids and cochlear implants-neither of which restore, and often further degrade, the F0 cues essential to parsing emotional prosody conveyed in speech.
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.