ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Can you
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In environments with multiple talkers, humans can 'tune in' to a speaker of interest while ignoring competing voices. In such conditions, however, auditory cortices track the attended speech envelope rhythms (cortical tracking of speech, CTS) less accurately than in quiet, hindering intelligibility. Visual speech cues (e.g., lip movements) can enhance this CTS, but it remains unclear whether other non-auditory sensory cues, such as tactile input, provide comparable benefits through similar neural mechanisms. Here, using magnetoencephalography, we quantified CTS as the coherence between the speech temporal envelope of the attended speaker and brain responses in supratemporal auditory areas at syllabic (4-8 Hz), word (1-4 Hz) and phrasal/sentential (<1 Hz) frequencies. Participants listened to connected speech presented alone, together with synchronous or asynchronous speech-based vibrations, or with the corresponding speaker video, in both quiet and a multi-talker background. We hypothesized that, in the presence of competing background speakers, speech-based vibrotactile stimulation improves comprehension by enhancing CTS of the attended speaker and modulating auditory-seeded functional brain connectivity with extra-auditory neocortical brain areas. Results revealed that synchronous vibrotactile stimulation improved comprehension in the multi-talker background and increased syllabic CTS at the right auditory cortex, with this CTS increase magnitude correlating with comprehension performance. Audio-tactile CTS enhancement was accompanied by stronger beta-band auditory cortex connectivity with ipsilateral angular and ventral inferior temporal gyri, alongside reduced alpha-band coupling with the precuneus. These findings suggest that vibrotactile input can support speech-in-noise processing by impacting both local auditory cortical activity and auditory-seeded long-range functional connectivity.
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.