ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2024
Validating a novel paradigm for simultaneously assessing mismatch response and frequency-following response to speech sounds.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 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.
- Time-efficient Methodology for Robustly Assessing Speech-related Mismatch Responses in Adults and Infants.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Event-Related Brain Potentials and Frequency-Following Response to Syllables in Newborns and Adults.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimized Simultaneous Assessment of Subcortical and Cortical Auditory Responses Through a Frequency-Tagged Roving Paradigm.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpeech sounds are processed in the human brain through intricate and interconnected cortical and subcortical structures. Two neural signatures, one largely from cortical sources (mismatch response, MMR) and one largely from subcortical sources (frequency-following response, FFR) are critical for assessing speech processing as they both show sensitivity to high-level linguistic information. However, there are distinct prerequisites for recording MMR and FFR, making them difficult to acquire simultaneously NEW
methodUsing a new paradigm, our study aims to concurrently capture both signals and test them against the following criteria: (1) replicating the effect that the MMR to a native speech contrast significantly differs from the MMR to a nonnative speech contrast, and (2) demonstrating that FFRs to three speech sounds can be reliably differentiated.
resultsUsing EEG from 18 adults, we observed a decoding accuracy of 72.2 % between the MMR to native vs. nonnative speech contrasts. A significantly larger native MMR was shown in the expected time window. Similarly, a significant decoding accuracy of 79.6 % was found for FFR. A high stimulus-to-response cross-correlation with a 9 ms lag suggested that FFR closely tracks speech sounds. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): These findings demonstrate that our paradigm reliably captures both MMR and FFR concurrently, replicating and extending past research with much fewer trials (MMR: 50 trials; FFR: 200 trials) and shorter experiment time (12 minutes).
conclusionsThis study paves the way to understanding cortical-subcortical interactions for speech and language processing, with the ultimate goal of developing an assessment tool specific to early development.
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.