ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Deficits in prosodic speech-in-noise recognition in schizophrenia patients and its association with psychiatric symptoms.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech-based computational approaches for classification and symptom monitoring in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Speech analytics across the schizophrenia spectrum disorders: multimodal natural language processing and machine learning modelling in a Chinese-speaking population.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUncertainty in speech perception and emotional disturbances are intertwined with psychiatric symptoms. How prosody embedded in target speech affects speech-in-noise recognition (SR) and is related to psychiatric symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (SCHs) remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the neural substrates of prosodic SR deficits and their associations with psychiatric symptom dimensions in patients with schizophrenia.
methodsFifty-four SCHs and 59 healthy control participants (HCs) completed the SR task (participants were required to identify the contents of the target pseudo-sentences expressed in neutral, happy, sad, angry, fearful, and disgusted prosody by actors), positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging scanning. We examined the deficits of the six prosodic SRs in schizophrenia patients and their associations with brain gray matter volume (GMV) and psychiatric symptoms.
resultsNegative emotional (sad, angry, fearful, and disgusted) prosodies of the target sentences worsened SR across groups. Both participant groups had equal SR between the neutral and happy prosody conditions. Compared to the anger and disgusted conditions, SCHs and HCs had better SR under sad and fearful conditions. Better prosodic SR was associated with shorter duration and lower local shimmer of target sentences. A partial least squares (PLS) component of GMV (covering 47 brain regions with group differences) was associated with six prosodic SRs. The happy SR was associated with the PANSS total, negative, and general scores, adjusting for covariates.
conclusionsNegative emotional prosodies of the target sentences dampened the recognition of the target sentences. The prosodic SR abnormalities in SCHs were associated with not only brain GMV reductions in the regions involved in the processing of sensorimotor, speech, and emotion but also with negative and general psychiatric symptoms. These findings suggest the possibility of improving negative symptoms by improving a happy SR in schizophrenia patients based on neuroplasticity.
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.