Auditory cortical potentials indices in phonological awareness: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the N1, P2, and N2 auditory evoked potentials reflect performance in phonological awareness tasks. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted using keywords such as "cortical auditory potential," "N1," "P2," "N2," and "phonological awareness" across databases (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science) and gray literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ProQuest). STUDY SAMPLE: Human studies were included if they analysed N1, P2, and/or N2 components in relation to phonological awareness tasks, either by correlating these components with task performance or comparing latency and amplitude across groups with different levels of phonological awareness. RESULTS: Of 371 records, seven studies (2004-2021) from Brazil, the Netherlands, China, Canada, and Finland were selected. Four were case-control studies, two were intervention studies, and one was observational. Four used phonological priming, and three used standardised phonological awareness assessments. Five studies suggested that the N1, P2, and N2 components may predict phonological awareness performance. CONCLUSION: The N1, N2, and P2 components are potential predictors of phonological processing. Tasks involving phonological priming-especially rhyme and alliteration-modulate N1 and N2, while the P2 component, though less studied, appears to be sensitive to alliteration. Future research should explore these relationships in greater detail for clinical applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".