Skip to main content
. 2013 Feb 6;33(6):2376–2387. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3289-12.2013

Table 2.

Auditory–motor connections

Connection
 All participants
 Native
 Non-native
 Group differences
 Fluency task
Statistics
 Strength Hz Statistics
 Strength Hz Statistics
 Strength Hz Statistics
 Statistics
From To t(66) p t(35) p t(30) p t df p r(28) p
Endogenous
    Auditory suppression
        PrC PT −4.08 <0.001 −0.23 −5.23 <0.001 −0.35 −0.93 0.358 −0.08 −2.58 65 0.012 0.301 0.120
        PrC aSTG −2.38 0.020 −0.15 −2.56 0.015 −0.23 −0.63 0.533 −0.05 −1.43 65 0.157 0.340 0.077*
    Auditory feedback
        PT PrC 1.47 0.146 0.07 −0.37 0.717 −0.02 2.07 0.047 0.16 −2.04 65 0.046 −0.412 0.030
        aSTG PrC 0.43 0.666 0.02 0.92 0.362 0.06 −0.30 0.770 −0.02 0.83 65 0.412 0.301 0.119
    Auditory interactions
        PT aSTG 1.57 0.120 0.09 −0.34 0.740 −0.03 3.06 0.005 0.21 −2.28 65 0.026 −0.391 0.039
        aSTG PT 1.38 0.173 0.07 2.52 0.016 0.18 −0.67 0.506 −0.05 2.22 65 0.030 0.093 0.639
Modulatory
    Auditory suppression
        PrC PT −1.11 0.27 −0.03 −1.57 0.125 −0.01 −0.85 0.40 −0.04 0.61 31.3 0.55 0.170 0.387
        PrC aSTG −2.82 0.006 −0.04 −2.52 0.02 −0.06 −1.34 0.19 −0.03 −1.02 65 0.31 −0.387 0.042**
    Auditory feedback
        PT PrC −0.74 0.465 −0.01 1.35 0.19 0.01 −1.54 0.13 −0.03 2.05 65 0.04 −0.052 0.794
        aSTG PrC −1.48 0.145 −0.03 −1.20 0.24 −0.03 −0.86 0.4 −0.03 −0.23 65 0.82 −0.145 0.462
    Auditory interactions
        PT aSTG −1.55 0.125 −0.02 −1.31 0.20 −0.03 −1.10 0.28 −0.01 −0.9 42.1 0.37 −0.015 0.960
        aSTG PT −2.89 0.005 −0.07 −1.96 0.06 −0.07 −2.13 0.04 −0.07 0.04 65 0.97 0.056 0.776

Connectivity representing auditory suppression, auditory feedback, and auditory interactions. Endogenous or average connections are given in the top, whereas modulatory connections, which were additively stronger for naming and reading, are given in the bottom. Connection strengths are given in hertz. Significant p values (p < 0.05, two-tailed) are rendered in bold here and in subsequent tables.

*To be clear, we assume that a trend equals 0.1 > p > 0.05. So this correlation is a trend with a two-tailed test but would be significant if we had used a one-tailed test instead (pone-tailed = 0.0385). Additional trends are italicized in subsequent tables.

**When the effect of a single outlier was removed, this correlation disappeared (r = −0.09, p = 0.66).