SynthesisDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2026
The functional foetal brain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work examines functional magnetic resonance imaging and foetal magnetoencephalography studies that measure foetal auditory and visual evoked responses during the third trimester of gestation. A prior study (Dunn et al., 2015) found inconsistent results in healthy human samples due to substantial methodological variability. The updated review also includes studies where participants are at risk of, or are already showing, atypical development. This gives a broader understanding of how and when sensory abilities develop and in which way their development is influenced by foetal and maternal risk factors. 46 studies were included from initial 528 reports. They demonstrate that auditory stimuli activate primarily temporal areas whereas visual stimuli activate only frontal regions. They also show that latencies and amplitudes of foetal evoked responses are comparable between both modalities, but are negatively affected by atypical development. Several stimulus and paradigm characteristics further moderate latency and amplitude values modality specific. Due to insufficient data regarding the gestational age, it remains inconclusive how age affects latencies and amplitudes. Older foetuses show, however, increased response rates and decreased latencies compared to younger foetuses, independent of modality. Key recommendations relate to improving data quality and comparability between studies. This will enable the development of clinical assessment tools in the future.
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.