Synchronizers show more precise speech-envelope encoding in the FFR, with the group difference modulated by presentation mode, time region, and stimulus¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Across the four stimuli, Synchronizers showed greater envelope-encoding precision than Non-synchronizers (ηp2 = 0.111). → Silvia Bonacina 2021 q3 i2 Collapsing across groups, envelope precision was higher for quiet stimuli than the noisy stimulus (ηp2 = 0.111), and a three-way group × stimulus × time region interaction was found (ηp2 = 0.047). → Silvia Bonacina 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Silvia Bonacina 2021¶

Silvia Bonacina, Stephanie Huang, Travis White-Schwoch, Jennifer Krizman, Trent Nicol and Nina Kraus. (2021). Rhythm, reading, and sound processing in the brain in preschool children. npj Science of Learning 6:20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00097-5

q3 · i2 · associational · r2

Repeated-measures ANOVA on envelope-encoding precision with synchronization group as between-group variable (Synchronizers N = 63, Non-synchronizers N = 37) and stimulus and time region as within-subject factors. The article reports "greater envelope precision than “Non-synchroni- zers”(F(1, 87) = 10.860, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.111)".

"Across all four stimuli ([ba], [da], [ga], and [da]noise), the main effect of synchronization group was found, with the “Synchroni- zers” showing greater envelope precision than “Non-synchroni- zers”(F(1, 87) = 10.860, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.111)"

Silvia Bonacina 2021 (2)¶

Silvia Bonacina, Stephanie Huang, Travis White-Schwoch, Jennifer Krizman, Trent Nicol and Nina Kraus. (2021). Rhythm, reading, and sound processing in the brain in preschool children. npj Science of Learning 6:20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00097-5

q3 · i2 · associational · r2

The omnibus three-way interaction of synchronization group, stimulus, and time region on envelope-encoding precision from the same repeated-measures ANOVA; the article reports "group by stimulus by time region ( F(1, 87) = 4.314, p = 0.041, ηp2 = 0.047)".

"An interaction was found between all the three conditions group by stimulus by time region ( F(1, 87) = 4.314, p = 0.041, ηp2 = 0.047)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Synchronizers have more consistent FFRs than Non-synchronizers, with group differences shaped by polarity, presentation mode, and time region — related
• Children who synchronize at only one beat rate fall statistically between the other two groups, with mostly non-significant differences — related
• Synchronizers show higher phase-locking consistency than Non-synchronizers, especially from transition to steady-state and at higher frequencies — related
• Brief tVNS paired with speech training produces no measurable change in the sensory representation of non-native pitch as indexed by frequency-following responses — related