Synchronizers show higher phase-locking consistency than Non-synchronizers, especially from transition to steady-state and at higher frequencies¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 Synchronizers displayed greater phase-locking consistency than Non-synchronizers (ηp2 = 0.056), with a group × time region interaction (ηp2 = 0.108). → Silvia Bonacina 2021
q3 i2 Children showed higher PLC in the higher frequency range (500–1000 Hz) than the lower range (100–400 Hz) (ηp2 = 0.122); polarity had no significant effect on PLC. → 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 phase-locking consistency comparing synchronization groups; the article reports "greater phase-locking consistency than “Non-synchronizers” (F(1,76) = 4.498, p = 0.037, ηp2 = 0.056)" and a group × time region interaction (F(1,76) = 9.182, p = 0.003, np2 = 0.108).
"“Synchronizers” display greater phase-locking consistency than “Non-synchronizers” (F(1,76) = 4.498, p = 0.037, ηp2 = 0.056)"
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
Within the same PLC ANOVA, frequency range was a within-subject variable; the article reports "greater PLC in the higher frequency range (500 –1000 Hz) than the lower frequency range (100–400 Hz) ( F(1,76) = 10.585, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.122)" and no significant polarity effect (p = 0.457).
"participants exhibited greater PLC in the higher frequency range (500 –1000 Hz) than the lower frequency range (100–400 Hz) ( F(1,76) = 10.585, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.122)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Synchronizers have more consistent FFRs than Non-synchronizers, with group differences shaped by polarity, presentation mode, and time region — related
- Synchronizers show more precise speech-envelope encoding in the FFR, with the group difference modulated by presentation mode, time region, and stimulus — related
- Synchronizers outperform Non-synchronizers on musical rhythm discrimination but not on melody discrimination — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
synchronizers-phase-locking-consistency |
title |
Synchronizers show higher phase-locking consistency than Non-synchronizers, especially from transition to steady-state and at higher frequencies |
description |
Synchronizers show higher phase-locking consistency than Non-synchronizers, especially from transition to steady-state and at higher frequencies |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — silvia-bonacina-2021, silvia-bonacina-2021-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.