ArticleeLife2025
Mixed evidence for the rhythmicity of auditory perceptual judgements in humans.
Article in eLife, 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
Numerous studies advocate for a rhythmic mode of perception. However, the evidence in the context of hearing remains inconsistent. We propose that the divergent conclusions drawn from previous work stem from conceptual and methodological issues. These include ambiguous assumptions regarding the origin of rhythmicity, variations in tasks and attentional demands, and differing analytical approaches for statistical testing. To address these points, we conducted a series of experiments in which human participants performed auditory tasks involving monaural targets presented against binaural white noise backgrounds, while also recording eye movements. These experiments varied in whether stimuli were presented randomly or required motor initialisation, the necessity of memory across trials, and the manipulation of attentional demands. Our findings challenge the notion of universal rhythmicity in hearing, but support the existence of paradigm- and ear-specific fluctuations in sensitivity and biases at multiple frequencies. The rhythmicity for sounds in the left and right ears appears independent among participants, and the rhythmicity in performance is possibly linked to oculomotor activity and attentional requirements. Overall, these results may help to resolve conflicting conclusions drawn in previous work and provide specific avenues for further studies into the rhythmicity of auditory perception.
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.