MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414333845 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/46vzq_v1

How does the infant brain process speech? An fNIRS meta-analysis

2025· preprint· en· W4414333845 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Anna Wiktoria Dopierała, Rowah Gheriani, Lauren L. Emberson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateralization of brain functionPerceptionCognitionSpeech perceptionFrontal lobeTemporal lobeNeuroimagingContrast (vision)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neural mechanisms of infant speech perception are an important topic of cognitive neuroscientific research. One key theoretical question in this area surrounds the lateralization of infant neural speech responses. Specifically, it is important to determine whether infants have patterns of left lateralization for speech in their frontal and temporal lobes, as is commonly seen in adults. However, the spatial patterns of infant findings are inconsistent; some studies show the frontal and temporal regions of both hemispheres activating, while others demonstrate activation predominantly or only in the left hemisphere. This meta-analysis, for the first time in the field, examines studies using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to determine the field-wide pattern of activation of the frontal and temporal lobes when infants are exposed to speech. In this pre-registered meta-analysis, we first completed a literature search using keywords through various popular online databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and the UBC Library. Papers were screened according to a pre-determined inclusion criterion. Those selected for our review would be analyzed for their methodologies and activation results. We coded the results for each contrast for each paper (e.g., neural activation patterns to speech stimuli vs. baseline). Overall, there was not strong evidence for left lateralization in either the temporal or the frontal lobes. We also did not find evidence that any lateralization pattern changed with age. One analysis revealed that patterns of lateralization in the left hemisphere may differ depending on language familiarity, with a marginally significant pattern of left lateralization when infants hear a familiar language. Overall, this meta-analysis provides an overview of the current state of the field concerning localized neural responses to speech stimuli and provides a field-wide answer to the question of the patterns of lateralization to speech stimuli found in infancy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.029
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207