ArticleNeuropsychologia2024
Effects of attentional instructions on the behavioral and neural mechanisms of speech auditory feedback control.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2024. 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.
- Effects of attentional instructions on neural and behavioral correlates of vocal auditory feedback control in post-stroke aphasia.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Functional neural oscillatory activities reveal the impact of attentional instructions on speech auditory feedback control.Neuropsychologia · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study investigated how instructions for paying attention to auditory feedback may affect speech error detection and sensorimotor control. Electroencephalography (EEG) and speech signals were recorded from 21 neurologically intact adult subjects while they produced the speech vowel sound /a/ and received randomized ±100 cents pitch-shift alterations in their real-time auditory feedback. Subjects were instructed to pay attention to their auditory feedback and press a button to indicate whether they detected a pitch-shift stimulus during trials. Data for this group was compared with 22 matched subjects who completed the same speech task under altered auditory feedback condition without attentional instructions. Results revealed a significantly smaller magnitude of speech compensations in the attentional-instruction vs. no-instruction group and a positive linear association between the magnitude of compensations and P2 event-related potential (ERP) amplitudes. In addition, we found that the amplitude of P2 ERP component was significantly larger in the attentional-instruction vs. no-instruction group. Source localization analysis showed that this effect was accounted for by significantly stronger neural activities in the right hemisphere insula, precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, and superior temporal gyrus in the attentional-instruction group. These findings suggest that attentional instructions may enhance speech auditory feedback error detection, and subsequently improve sensorimotor control via generating more stable speech outputs (i.e., smaller compensations) in response to pitch-shift alterations. Our data are informative for advancing theoretical models and motivating targeted interventions with a focus on the role of attentional instructions for improving treatment outcomes in patients with motor speech disorders.
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.