Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41676087›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

The complex impact of auditory error direction, magnitude, and exposure on corrective responses.

Anuradha J Sreedhar, Ayoub Daliri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Anuradha J SreedharCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Ayoub DaliriCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: When encountering errors, the brain produces within-production corrective responses to compensate for the errors. The brain also develops adaptive responses to ensure the accuracy of future productions. This study examined the impact of the number of exposures to errors with different characteristics on corrective and adaptive responses. Methods: We designed a compensation paradigm to apply three perturbation magnitudes in two directions within the two-dimensional formant space: (1) a concurrent increase in the first formant and decrease in the second formant, acoustically shifting /ɛ/ toward /æ/ (ɛ-to-æ perturbations), and (2) a concurrent increase in the first formant and increase in the second formant, shifting /ɛ/ toward the outside of the vowel space (ɛ-to-out perturbations). To calculate corrective responses in perturbed trials, we determined the difference between formants in the late (300-400 ms) and early (0-100 ms) intervals of the vowel. We estimated adaptive responses in unperturbed trials by calculating formant changes in the early interval of the post-perturbation trial relative to the early interval of the pre-perturbation trial. We examined the responses in the first and second halves of trials in each condition to determine the effect of exposure to perturbations. Results: We found that (1) corrective responses to ɛ-to-æ perturbations were larger and proportionally larger for small perturbations in the first half of perturbed trials, (2) adaptive responses were measurable after exposure to a single perturbation, and (3) strikingly, both corrective and adaptive response directions were generally in the participant-specific ɛ-ɪ direction, regardless of the perturbation direction. This preferred response direction was in the opposite direction of the ɛ-to-æ perturbations but was perpendicular to the ɛ-to-out perturbations. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the brain responds more to small and natural-sounding errors (ɛ-to-æ perturbations) than large and unnatural errors (ɛ-to-out perturbations). The brain's biases in selecting movements may influence error compensation, leading to responses that prioritize preferred movements even when they do not fully correct errors (e.g., responding in the ɛ-ɪ direction for ɛ-to-out perturbations). Finally, as the brain encounters more unexpected errors, it may evaluate them differently and respond less to them.

Indexed as

adaptivecorrectiveerror directionerror exposurespeech

Identifiers

PMID41676087
PMCPMC12886347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.