ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Speech Perception and Preparation Are Supported by Distinct Neural Dynamics Across Development.
Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech development requires precise timing and sensorimotor integration, supported by neural oscillations that synchronize activity across auditory, motor, and cognitive circuits. Among speech-relevant frequency bands, beta oscillations (13-30 Hz) are critical for timing and coordination, supporting sensorimotor processing and speech preparation. Beta desynchronization (power decreases) is typically observed prior to movement, reflecting motor planning, and beta activity also supports cognitive functions such as attention and anticipation. Although age-related changes in beta power have been documented, its developmental trajectory during speech processing remains underexplored. Here, we compared beta power dynamics in 28 adults (mean age = 27.8 yr) and 50 children (mean age = 10.3 yr) during speech perception and production tasks using EEG. On each trial, participants received a visual cue indicating the condition ("Say," "Hear," or "See"), followed by rhythmic tones and a warning cue presented as a picture with its name (e.g., cat) in Say and Hear, but only as a picture in See. A Go cue then prompted participants to speak, listen, or maintain fixation. Beta power was analyzed in three time windows: postwarning cue (P1), pre-Go cue (P2), and post-Go cue (P3). Adults exhibited significant beta power decreases across all time windows, particularly in Say, indicating mature sensorimotor and cognitive integration. In contrast, children showed no significant condition effects and minimal beta reduction in P3. Beta modulation was negatively correlated with age in children, suggesting ongoing maturation of beta oscillations. These findings highlight key developmental differences in beta oscillations relevant to speech processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.