| Literature DB >> 29675038 |
Tsukasa Maruyama1, Hikaru Takeuchi2, Yasuyuki Taki2,3,4, Kosuke Motoki5, Hyeonjeong Jeong5,6, Yuka Kotozaki7, Seishu Nakagawa5, Rui Nouchi8,9, Kunio Iizuka5,10, Ryoichi Yokoyama11, Yuki Yamamoto5, Sugiko Hanawa5, Tsuyoshi Araki9, Kohei Sakaki5, Yukako Sasaki5, Daniele Magistro5,6, Ryuta Kawashima2,5,9.
Abstract
Time-compressed speech is an artificial form of rapidly presented speech. Training with time-compressed speech (TCSSL) in a second language leads to adaptation toward TCSSL. Here, we newly investigated the effects of 4 weeks of training with TCSSL on diverse cognitive functions and neural systems using the fractional amplitude of spontaneous low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF), resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) with the left superior temporal gyrus (STG), fractional anisotropy (FA), and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) of young adults by magnetic resonance imaging. There were no significant differences in change of performance of measures of cognitive functions or second language skills after training with TCSSL compared with that of the active control group. However, compared with the active control group, training with TCSSL was associated with increased fALFF, RSFC, and FA and decreased rGMV involving areas in the left STG. These results lacked evidence of a far transfer effect of time-compressed speech training on a wide range of cognitive functions and second language skills in young adults. However, these results demonstrated effects of time-compressed speech training on gray and white matter structures as well as on resting-state intrinsic activity and connectivity involving the left STG, which plays a key role in listening comprehension.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29675038 PMCID: PMC5838482 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6574178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
The mean ± SD difficulty level of the most difficult performances of all subjects (the highest difficulty level at which the subjects still achieved at least five correct answers to the 10 problems in each set of auditory stimuli in training tasks among the first three and last three training sessions).
| First three sessions | Last three sessions | |
|---|---|---|
| Training with TCSSL (times faster than the original speed) | 2.09 ± 0.38 | 2.97 ± 0.55 |
| Active control training (semitones (#) higher than the original pitch) | 12.72 ± 2.49 | 19.36 ± 5.32 |
Pre- and posttest scores for psychological measures (mean ± standard error of mean).
| Training with TCSSL (experimental group)b | Active control | Planned contrast |
| Effect size ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest scores | Posttest scores | Pretest scores | Posttest scores | ||||
| English listening test (score) | 268.1 ± 53.46 | 252.24 ± 53.2 | 283.93 ± 47.25 | 269.64 ± 46.54 | Experimental > control | 0.884 | −8.33 × 10−3 |
| English reading test (score) | 232.93 ± 57.98 | 221.72 ± 55.04 | 230.00 ± 60.29 | 238.7 ± 54.65 | Experimental > control | 0.938 | −0.0282 |
| RAPMa (score) | 26.61 ± 4.43 | 29.24 ± 4.16 | 28.79 ± 4.80 | 31.03 ± 4.67 | Experimental > control | 0.576 | −2.09 × 10−4 |
| Digit span (score) | 37.17 ± 7.16 | 37.72 ± 8.69 | 38.90 ± 7.49 | 38.76 ± 7.10 | Experimental > control | 0.417 | 3.85 × 10−4 |
| Listening span test (score) | 12.79 ± 2.67 | 13.38 ± 3.03 | 12.68 ± 3.34 | 12.96 ± 2.86 | Experimental > control | 0.311 | 3.86 × 10−3 |
| Word-color task (items) | 67.69 ± 9.04 | 75.90 ± 8.22 | 72.28 ± 6.21 | 77.17 ± 6.53 | Experimental > control | 0.236 | 6.36 × 10−3 |
| Color-word task (items) | 52.97 ± 5.26 | 53.83 ± 7.49 | 53.48 ± 5.65 | 55.52 ± 6.94 | Experimental > control | 0.840 | −6.05 × 10−3 |
| Reverse Stroop task (items) | 60.90 ± 6.06 | 63.69 ± 7.42 | 62.76 ± 5.58 | 65.34 ± 8.13 | Two tailed | 0.893 | 1.47 × 10−4 |
| Stroop task (items) | 48.72 ± 6.75 | 51.38 ± 7.14 | 51.76 ± 6.52 | 53.69 ± 7.14 | Two tailed | 0.688 | 8.53 × 10−4 |
| Simple arithmetic (items) | 31.93 ± 5.15 | 32.45 ± 6.17 | 32.52 ± 5.14 | 32.43 ± 4.54 | Experimental > control | 0.260 | 2.38 × 10−3 |
| Complex arithmetic (items) | 7.55 ± 4.45 | 7.90 ± 4.48 | 6.72 ± 2.18 | 7.53 ± 2.14 | Experimental > control | 0.859 | −3.22 × 10−3 |
| Japanese reading comprehension (items) | 14.31 ± 4.42 | 18.38 ± 6.42 | 13.66 ± 3.76 | 18 ± 5.36 | Experimental > control | 0.633 | −8.63 × 10−4 |
| SA creativity test (total grade) | 25.41 ± 6.12 | 24.31 ± 5.25 | 25.34 ± 5.55 | 25.34 ± 6.00 | Two tailed | 0.379 | −9.01 × 10−3 |
aRaven's advanced progressive matrices; btime-compressed speech training; cone-way analysis of covariance with test-retest differences in psychological measures as dependent variables and pretest scores of the psychological measures as covariates; deffect size estimates were calculated using Cohen's d.
Figure 1The effect of training with TCSSL on RS-fMRI measures. (a) The effect of training with TCSSL on fALFF. The results are shown with P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster-level with an underlying voxel-level of P < 0.001, uncorrected. There was a larger increase in fALFF in the training with TCSSL group compared with the active control group (this analysis was performed to identify differences in pre- to posttraining changes between groups, as described in the Methods section). Compared with active control training, training with TCSSL resulted in an increase in fALFF in the left STG and the left middle temporal gyrus. (b) The effect of training with TCSSL on RSFC with the left STG. There was an increase in RSFC with the left STG in the training with TCSSL group compared with the active control group (red areas: P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster-level with an underlying voxel-level of P < 0.001, uncorrected; green areas: P < 0.001, uncorrected). Compared with the active control training, the training with TCSSL resulted in a significant increase (red areas) in RSFC between the left STG and an anatomical cluster that spread around the left middle frontal and superior frontal premotor area (this analysis was performed to identify differences in pre- to posttraining changes between groups, as described in the Methods section) and tendencies of increase in RSFC with the left STG in bilateral frontal and right temporal areas. (c) Regions that showed positive RSFC with the left STG. The results shown were obtained using a threshold of threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE), P < 0.05 based on 5000 permutations.
Figure 2The effect of training with TCSSL on FA. The results are shown with P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster-level within the area of the left AF with an underlying voxel-level of P < 0.001, uncorrected. There was a larger increase in FA in the training with TCSSL group compared with the active control group. Compared with the active control training, the training with TCSSL resulted in an increase in FA of an area in the left AF (this analysis was performed to identify differences in pre- to posttraining changes between groups, as described in the Methods section). Regions showing a significant effect were overlaid on mean preprocessed, but not smoothed, FA images of the participants.
Figure 3The effect of training with TCSSL on rGMV. The results shown were obtained using a threshold of threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE), P < 0.05 based on 5000 permutations. There was a greater decrease in rGMV in the training with TCSSL group compared with the active control group (this analysis was performed to identify differences in pre- to posttraining changes between groups, as described in the Methods section). Compared with the active control training, the training with TCSSL resulted in a decrease in rGMV in the junction of the left middle and STG and the left middle and superior occipital gyri.