ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
The auditory P2 is influenced by pitch changes but not pitch strength and consists of two separate subcomponents.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Not All Rules Are Equal: Rare Conditional Rules Shape Behaviour but Yield to Global Probability in Passive Listening.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Sensory Attenuation of Auditory P2 Responses is Modulated by the Sense of Action Timing Control.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Electrophysiological and behavioural responses to consonant and dissonant piano chords as standardised affective stimuli.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Association between cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded directly through cochlear implants and post-implantation auditory and speech outcomes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Short- and long-term neuroplasticity interact during the perceptual learning of concurrent speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The P2 component of the auditory evoked potential has previously been shown to depend on the acoustic stimulus properties and prior exposure to the materials. Here, we show that it is also affected by acoustic changes, as P2 amplitudes were strongly enhanced in response to voice pitch changes with a stepwise pattern compared to dynamic pitch changes typical for natural speech, and also reflected the magnitude of these pitch changes. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that neither the P2 nor any other component is affected by the harmonicity of the materials. Despite no prior exposure and a weaker pitch, artificially created inharmonic versions of the materials elicited similar activity throughout the auditory cortex. This suggests that so-called harmonic template neurons observed in animal studies are either absent or do not exist in sufficient number in the human auditory cortex to detect their activity extracranially. Crucially, morphology as well as scalp maps and source reconstructions of the EEG data showed that the P2 appears to consist of two separate subcomponents. While the "P2a" was localised to the auditory cortex, the subsequent "P2b" included generators spread across the auditory cortex and association areas. The two subcomponents thus likely reflect processing at different stages of the auditory pathway.
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.