Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41213804›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2025

Neural Tracking of the Maternal Voice in the Infant Brain.

Sarah Jessen, Martin Orf, Jonas Obleser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah JessenInstitute of Medical Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck 23562, Germany sarah.jessen@uni-luebeck.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4067-271X
Martin OrfDepartment of Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck 23562, Germany.
Jonas ObleserDepartment of Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck 23562, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7619-0459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infants preferentially process familiar social signals, but the neural mechanisms underlying continuous processing of maternal speech remain unclear. Using EEG-based neural encoding models based on temporal response functions, we investigated how 7-month-old human infants track maternal versus unfamiliar speech and whether this affects simultaneous face processing. Infants (13 boys, 12 girls) showed stronger neural tracking of their mother's voice, independent of acoustic properties, suggesting an early neural signature of voice familiarity. Furthermore, central encoding of unfamiliar faces was diminished when infants heard their mother's voice and face tracking accuracy at central electrodes increased with earlier occipital face tracking, suggesting heightened attentional engagement. However, we found no evidence for differential processing of happy versus fearful faces, contrasting previous findings on early emotion discrimination. Our results reveal interactive effects of voice familiarity on multimodal processing in infancy: while maternal speech enhances neural tracking, it may also alter how other social cues, such as faces, are processed. The findings suggest that early auditory experiences shape how infants allocate cognitive resources to social stimuli, emphasizing the need to consider cross-modal influences in early development.

Indexed as

BrainMother-Child RelationsMothersRecognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionVoiceAcoustic StimulationAttentionAuditory PerceptionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansInfantMalePhotic StimulationEEGface perceptioninfantneural trackingvoice familiarityvoice perception

Identifiers

PMID41213804
PMCPMC12696610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.