ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Motor signals modulate cortical but not subcortical processing of self-initiated sounds.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When we produce sounds ourselves, the brain modulates the auditory neural response through an efference copy mechanism, allowing us to distinguish between self-initiated and externally generated auditory inputs. However, the precise level of the auditory pathway at which this attenuation occurs remains unclear. While evidence from animal models suggests that early auditory processing of self-generated sounds may be modulated by corticofugal signaling, localized cortical modulation would preserve the high-fidelity subcortical sound encoding while allowing flexible, context-dependent processing at higher levels. To probe potential motor influences in the early auditory system, we collected scalp-recorded frequency following responses (FFRs) from 33 normal-hearing adults during active (self-initiated) and passive (externally presented) listening conditions using a 170 ms speech stimulus. Data were collected with a vertical montage that emphasizes subcortical generators of the FFR. We observed no significant differences in the FFR between active and passive conditions in spectral power, response amplitude, pitch tracking, onset latency, or phase consistency. In contrast, cortical event-related potentials showed motor-induced suppression (MIS): reduced early peak amplitudes in the active condition after correcting for motor signals, increased phase consistency prior to auditory feedback, and more precise phase consistency at sound offset. In addition to indicating FFRs can be collected during a wider range of behavioral tasks without substantial motor contamination, our observation of the canonical MIS in cortical signals but not in FFRs suggests that MIS of self-initiated sounds primarily affects later stages of auditory processing rather than the early encoding reflected in the FFR.
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.