ArticleScientific reports2024
A simple psychophysical procedure separates representational and noise components in impairments of speech prosody perception after right-hemisphere stroke.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
After a right hemisphere stroke, more than half of the patients are impaired in their capacity to produce or comprehend speech prosody. Yet, and despite its social-cognitive consequences for patients, aprosodia following stroke has received scant attention. In this report, we introduce a novel, simple psychophysical procedure which, by combining systematic digital manipulations of speech stimuli and reverse-correlation analysis, allows estimating the internal sensory representations that subtend how individual patients perceive speech prosody, and the level of internal noise that govern behavioral variability in how patients apply these representations. Tested on a sample of N = 22 right-hemisphere stroke survivors and N = 21 age-matched controls, the representation + noise model provides a promising alternative to the clinical gold standard for evaluating aprosodia (MEC): both parameters strongly associate with receptive, and not expressive, aprosodia measured by MEC within the patient group; they have better sensitivity than MEC for separating high-functioning patients from controls; and have good specificity with respect to non-prosody-related impairments of auditory attention and processing. Taken together, individual differences in either internal representation, internal noise, or both, paint a potent portrait of the variety of sensory/cognitive mechanisms that can explain impairments of prosody processing after stroke.
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.