Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 Sep 20;34(3):468. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.09.004

Table 7.

Studies Investigating Middle and Superior Temporal Lobe Functioning During Speech Processing Tasks

Study Task Middle Temporal Lobe Superior Temporal Lobe
Group
Diff		 Pos Dis Group Diff Pos Dis
Koeda (2006)1 Speech/Non-speech ↓ LR 0 - ↓ LR 0 -
Ngan (2003)2 Speech/Non-speech ↑ R - 0 ↑ R - 0
Surguladze (2001) 3 Nonvisual speech ↓ LR −0.85 - −0.75 -
Allen (2007)4 Speech appraisal ↓ L 0.40 - ↑ R 0.40 -
↓ L 0.40
Woodruff (1997)5 Listening to speech ↑ R −0.70 - ↓ L 0.70 -
Effect Size – Quantitative −0.22 - 0.12 -
Q - Heterogeneity Statistic (probability value) 23.48 (<0.001) - 20.72 (<0.001) -
Confidence Interval Lower Bound −0.47 - −0.14 -
Confidence Interval Upper Bound 0.02 - 0.37 -

Correlation values reported in table (r or rho).

Pos = positive symptom dimension; Dis = disorganization symptom dimension Group diff = Difference between groups (where there were multiple patient groups this represented patients pooled together or the result of each individual patient group compared to controls); ↑= greater activation in patients compared to controls; ↓ = less activation in patients compared to controls; n.s. = non-significant contrast; L = left; R = right

Note: The direction of the effect size represents whether or not the effect is in a consistent direction with the abnormality compared to controls. A positive effect size represents that abnormal brain activity in patients compared to controls is associated with greater symptom severity (e.g., hypo- and hyperactivity compared to controls is associated with greater symptoms or greater symptoms in the patient group with the symptoms of interest), whereas a negative effect size represents the opposite (e.g., abnormal activity compared to controls is associated with fewer symptoms or the patient group with fewer symptoms of interest).

1

The positive symptom dimension included the conceptual disorganization, mannerisms and posturing, hostility, grandiosity, suspiciousness, hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, and excitement BPRS items.

2

The disorganization dimension included the formal thought disorder score from the Signs and Symptoms of Psychotic Illness Scale.

3

The psychotic group had mild or more severe unusual thought content or hallucinations on the BPRS items. Used best estimation to convert statistics comparing groups with differing symptom presentation/severity to r values reported in table.

4

The hallucinating group had a mild or more severe auditory hallucination score on the SAPS. The non-hallucinating group was not experiencing auditory verbal hallucinations currently nor had a history of auditory hallucinations. Used best estimation to convert statistics comparing groups with differing symptom presentation/severity to r values reported in table.

5

The group difference was derived from controls compared patients trait positive and negative for auditory hallucinations. In addition, patients were scanned over two different time periods. First the group was scanned during a period of severe ongoing auditory hallucinations as measured by the SAPS (state positive) and after those hallucinations (state negative) had diminished. Used best estimation to convert statistics comparing groups with differing symptom presentation/severity to r values reported in table.