SynthesisScientific reports2024
Brain responses to repetition-based rule-learning do not exhibit sex differences: an aggregated analysis of infant fNIRS studies.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do babies perceive cries as speech?Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Understanding variability in full-term newborns' fNIRS data: the impact of birth weight and gestational age on infants' speech perception abilities.Neurophotonics · 2026Article
- Singing to the newborn brain uncovers early traces of specialized neural networks.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Use of Statistical and Acoustic Cues for Speech Segmentation in French-Learning 7-Month-Old Infants and French-Speaking Adults.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Using functional near-infrared spectroscopy to study the early developing brain: future directions and new challenges.Neurophotonics · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Studies have repeatedly shown sex differences in some areas of language development, typically with an advantage for female over male children. However, the tested samples are typically small and the effects do not always replicate. Here, we used a meta-analytic approach to address this issue in a larger sample, combining seven fNIRS studies on the neural correlates of repetition- and non-repetition-based rule learning in newborns and 6-month-old infants. The ability to extract structural regularities from the speech input is fundamental for language development, it is therefore highly relevant to understand whether this ability shows sex differences. The meta-analysis tested the effect of Sex, as well as of other moderators on infants' hemodynamic responses to repetition-based (e.g. ABB: "mubaba") and non-repetition-based (e.g. ABC: "mubage") sequences in both anatomically and functionally defined regions of interests. Our analyses did not reveal any sex differences at birth or at 6 months, suggesting that the ability to encode these regularities is robust across sexes. Interestingly, the meta-analysis revealed other moderator effects. Thus in newborns, we found a greater involvement of the bilateral temporal areas compared to the frontal areas for both repetition and non-repetition sequences. Further, non-repetition sequences elicited greater responses in 6-month-olds than in newborns, especially in the bilateral frontal areas. When analyzing functional clusters of HbR timetraces, we found that a larger right-left asymmetry for newborn boys in brain responses compared to girls, which may be interpreted in terms of a larger right-left asymmetry in cerebral blood flow in boys than in girls early in life. We conclude that extracting repetition-based regularities from speech is a robust ability with a well-defined neural substrate present from birth and it does not exhibit sex differences.
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.