ArticleeNeuro2024
No Evidence of Musical Training Influencing the Cortical Contribution to the Speech-Frequency-Following Response and Its Modulation through Selective Attention.
Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Cortical Contribution to the Speech-Frequency-Following Response Is Not Modulated by Visual Information.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Accent type modulates frequency-specific neural tracking of speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2026Article
- Neural Coding of Fundamental Frequency and Processing of Discrete Pitch Accents in Middle Age.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Large-scale multi-site study shows no association between musical training and early auditory neural sound encoding.Nature communications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musicians can have better abilities to understand speech in adverse condition such as background noise than non-musicians. However, the neural mechanisms behind such enhanced behavioral performances remain largely unclear. Studies have found that the subcortical frequency-following response to the fundamental frequency of speech and its higher harmonics (speech-FFR) may be involved since it is larger in people with musical training than in those without. Recent research has shown that the speech-FFR consists of a cortical contribution in addition to the subcortical sources. Both the subcortical and the cortical contribution are modulated by selective attention to one of two competing speakers. However, it is unknown whether the strength of the cortical contribution to the speech-FFR, or its attention modulation, is influenced by musical training. Here we investigate these issues through magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings of 52 subjects (18 musicians, 25 non-musicians, and 9 neutral participants) listening to two competing male speakers while selectively attending one of them. The speech-in-noise comprehension abilities of the participants were not assessed. We find that musicians and non-musicians display comparable cortical speech-FFRs and additionally exhibit similar subject-to-subject variability in the response. Furthermore, we also do not observe a difference in the modulation of the neural response through selective attention between musicians and non-musicians. Moreover, when assessing whether the cortical speech-FFRs are influenced by particular aspects of musical training, no significant effects emerged. Taken together, we did not find any effect of musical training on the cortical speech-FFR.
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.