ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
The effects of delayed auditory feedback depend on both the rhythm and content of the feedback signal.
Article in Frontiers in human 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Delayed auditory feedback (DAF) has long been known to disrupt fluent speech, yet the underlying mechanisms remain a matter of debate. Some have hypothesized that interference occurs because of asynchronous sensory and motor rhythms, independent of the specific content of auditory inputs. The goal of this study was to compare the effects of canonical DAF with those of delayed envelope modulated noise (EMN), a manipulation that preserves the speech envelope but removes other speech content. We hypothesized that canonical DAF would disrupt speech more than delayed EMN, revealing an important role for speech-related spectral content in feedback-driven interference of speech. Methods: 38 neurologically healthy adults with no history of speech, language, or hearing disorders produced two types of speech materials (non-lexical 3-syllable sequences and sentences) under five auditory feedback conditions (speech feedback with minimal or 200 ms delay, EMN with minimal or 200 ms delay, and constant speech-shaped noise). Primary outcome measures were speech rate and error probability, with secondary measures including fundamental frequency, intensity, and within-trial modulation of each. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using mixed-effects models for each outcome measure and stimulus type. Results: For each outcome measure and stimulus type, the effect of delay differed significantly between the SPEECH and EMN conditions. Speech feedback with 200 ms delay elicited large reductions in speech rate (~0.8-0.9 syllables/s) and large increases in error probability (~31-44%), which were consistent across stimulus types. EMN with 200 ms delay, on the other hand, elicited much smaller effects, with slight increases in speech rate (~0.13-0.14 syllables/s) and no significant changes in error rate. Delayed speech also caused increases in intensity and intensity modulation and decreases in pitch modulation, whereas results were less consistent for delayed EMN. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the presence of speech-related spectral content in the auditory feedback signal, above and beyond the asynchrony of speech rhythms, is necessary to elicit the full disruptive effects of DAF. We describe study results within a theoretical framework that includes roles for both rhythmic asynchrony and feedback content in explaining these disruptions.
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.