ArticleNeuroImage2026
Effects of attentional instructions on neural and behavioral correlates of vocal auditory feedback control in post-stroke aphasia.
Article in NeuroImage, 2026. 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
Existing evidence supports the notion that feedback-based attentional instructions can modulate vocal sensorimotor control mechanisms. Here, we investigated whether such instructions can improve the neural and behavioral functions for vocal auditory feedback control in individuals with aphasia. A total of 66 participants with post-stroke aphasia and 64 age-matched controls performed steady vocalizations of the speech vowel sound /a/ while their real-time auditory feedback was randomly altered by ±100 cents pitch-shift stimuli during electro-encephalography (EEG) recordings. Two conditions were tested: 1) participants received instructions to monitor their feedback and press buttons to indicate the detection of pitch-shift alterations, and 2) participants performed the same task without such instructions. Results indicated significantly lower accuracy of pitch shift detection in aphasia vs. controls. Event-related potential (ERP) analysis revealed that the amplitude of P2 neural component was increased under instructions in both groups, with stronger effects in controls than aphasia. We also found that the magnitude of vocal compensations was reduced under instructions in controls without such an effect for aphasia. In addition, attentional instructions resulted in reconfiguration of neural-behavioral coupling: under instructions, larger P2 activities were associated with smaller vocal compensations whereas no such relationship was observed without instructions. Moreover, larger P2 amplitudes predicted better detection accuracies in aphasia. These findings provide evidence that attention to auditory feedback modulates speech error detection while stabilizing vocal motor output. In aphasia, attentional modulation provide a potential mechanism to support speech monitoring and improve communicative outcomes via linking cortical error processing to conscious feedback awareness.
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.