ArticleeNeuro2025
Test-Retest Reliability of TRF-Derived Measures of Cortical Tracking of the Speech Envelope.
Article in eNeuro, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cortical tracking of the speech envelope is an emerging, noninvasive measure of neurophysiological processing of speech that is being widely adopted. It demonstrates good ecological validity, as it allows researchers to study human processing of continuous, naturalistic speech containing dynamic spectrotemporal variations and rich linguistic content. While measures of cortical tracking have strong clinical and research applications, there is a lack of research documenting the reliability of these measures, including how they are affected by the stimulus and how the stimulus is represented, as well as electroencephalography (EEG) acquisition and analysis parameters. In this study, we measured the test-retest reliability of cortical tracking of the speech envelope across different stimuli (an audiobook vs a podcast), stimulus features (broadband envelope and its derivative, multiband envelope and its derivative), reference electrodes (average mastoid vs common average reference), and EEG frequency bands (delta, theta, full) in 26 neurotypical adults (20 female) to assess the potential for cortical tracking to serve as a reliable measure of speech processing. We also examined the amount of data required to achieve stable reliability estimates. We observed moderate to good test-retest reliability for most parameters with as little as 390 s of data, supporting the utility of cortical tracking of the speech envelope as a reliable tool for assessing speech processing. The findings of this study will allow researchers to more effectively design and implement studies on cortical tracking in neurotypical adults and adults with language disorders.
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.