A temporal hierarchy for conspecific vocalization discrimination in humans.

The ability to discriminate conspecific vocalizations is observed across species and early during development. However, its neurophysiologic mechanism remains controversial, particularly regarding whether it involves specialized processes with dedicated neural machinery. We identified spatiotemporal brain mechanisms for conspecific vocalization discrimination in humans by applying electrical neuroimaging analyses to auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) in response to acoustically and psychophysically controlled nonverbal human and animal vocalizations as well as sounds of man-made objects. AEP strength modulations in the absence of topographic modulations are suggestive of statistically indistinguishable brain networks. First, responses were significantly stronger, but topographically indistinguishable to human versus animal vocalizations starting at 169-219 ms after stimulus onset and within regions of the right superior temporal sulcus and superior temporal gyrus. This effect correlated with another AEP strength modulation occurring at 291-357 ms that was localized within the left inferior prefrontal and precentral gyri. Temporally segregated and spatially distributed stages of vocalization discrimination are thus functionally coupled and demonstrate how conventional views of functional specialization must incorporate network dynamics. Second, vocalization discrimination is not subject to facilitated processing in time, but instead lags more general categorization by approximately 100 ms, indicative of hierarchical processing during object discrimination. Third, although differences between human and animal vocalizations persisted when analyses were performed at a single-object level or extended to include additional (man-made) sound categories, at no latency were responses to human vocalizations stronger than those to all other categories. Vocalization discrimination transpires at times synchronous with that of face discrimination but is not functionally specialized.

Trabecular bone score in type 1 diabetes--a cross-sectional study.

UNLABELLED: Trabecular bone score (TBS) seems to provide additive value on BMD to identify individuals with prevalent fractures in T1D. TBS did not significantly differ between T1D patients and healthy controls, but TBS and HbA1c were independently associated with prevalent fractures in T1D. A TBS cutoff <1.42 reflected prevalent fractures with 91.7 % sensitivity and 43.2 % specificity. INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) increases the risk of osteoporotic fractures. TBS was recently proposed as an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture. This study aimed at investigating the TBS in T1D patients and healthy controls. Associations with prevalent fractures were tested. METHODS: One hundred nineteen T1D patients (59 males, 60 premenopausal females; mean age 43.4 ± 8.9 years) and 68 healthy controls matched for gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed. The TBS was calculated in the lumbar region, based on two-dimensional (2D) projections of DXA assessments. RESULTS: TBS was 1.357 ± 0.129 in T1D patients and 1.389 ± 0.085 in controls (p = 0.075). T1D patients with prevalent fractures (n = 24) had a significantly lower TBS than T1D patients without fractures (1.309 ± 0.125 versus 1.370 ± 0.127, p = 0.04). The presence of fractures in T1D was associated with lower TBS (odds ratio = 0.024, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.001-0.875; p = 0.042) but not with age or BMI. TBS and HbA1c were independently associated with fractures. The area-under-the curve (AUC) of TBS was similar to that of total hip BMD in discriminating T1D patients with or without prevalent fractures. In this set-up, a TBS cutoff <1.42 discriminated the presence of fractures with a sensitivity of 91.7 % and a specificity of 43.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: TBS values are lower in T1D patients with prevalent fractures, suggesting an alteration of bone strength in this subgroup of patients. Reliable TBS cutoffs for the prediction of fracture risk in T1D need to be determined in larger prospective studies.