EEG correlates of auditory rise time processing: A systematic review

Results (in relation to RT increase) Total risk of bias score Cobb et al. (1978) N=7 (f:5) adults ABR 1 kHz tones 0.01, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5 ms Binaurally 20, 40, 60 dB SPL Rate 10/s Mean, SD 60 dB: lat I–VII ↑; 40 dB: lat I–V ↑; lat VI–VII ↓ between 10 µs and 0.5 ms than ↑ but ns 6 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 7 Stapells & Picton (1981) N=11 (f:5) [22–30] ABR Exp 1–4: 0.5 kHz tones Exp 5: 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz tones Exp 6: +noise plateau duration: 0.01ms FT=RT Exp 1–4: 5 ms Exp 5–6: 1, 2, 5, 8 ms Monaurally (left ear); 115 dB SPL ANOVA amp V ↓ lat V ↑ 7 Suzuki & Horiuchi (1981) N=8 (f:8) [21–34] ABR 2 and 0.5 kHz series of tone pips FT=RT 2kHZ: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5 ms 0.5 kHz: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 ms Binaurally, earphones 15–50 dB nHL Rate 13.3/s Mean, SD 2kHZ: amp ns lat V ns on 50 dB nHL lat V ↓ on 30–40 dB nHL 0.5kHz: amp V ↑ lat V ↑ 8 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 8 Hecox & Deegan (1983) N=8 (f:8) Exp 1: N=6 Exp 2: N=4 [21–27] ABR Noise bursts; Durations 4 and 10 ms FT=RT Exp1: 0, 1, 2, 5 ms Exp2: 0, 2, 5 ms Monourally 50 dB above personal threshold (72dB white noise SPL) Rate 31/s Pairwise comparison, regression analysis amp ns lat V ↑ 10 Salt & Thornton (1984) (N=8) ABR Condensation and rarefaction clicks 0.17–0.58 ms Monourally (left ear), 106dB SPL Rate 9.1/s T-test amp depends on polarity lat I–VI ↑ 7 Folsom & Aurich (1987) infants: N=10, [11–13] weeks, adults: N=10 ABR Gated noise bursts; plateau duration: 20ms FT=RT 0.1, 2.5, 5 ms Earphones, 50 dB nHL Rate 16/s ANOVA amp V ↓ lat V ↑ 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 9 [20–30] years Gerull et al. (1987) (N=12) [25–45] ABR Condensation and rarefaction clicks, single- slope stimuli 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0 ms Earphones, 80–120 SPL Rate 12/s T-test amp V ↓ lat V ↑ 9 Barth & Burkard (1993) N=10 adults ABR Noise bursts; Durations 5.0, 5.67, 6.66 and 8.33 s 0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5 ms Monourally 15 dB, 30 dB, 45 dB, 70 dB SPL Linear regression, rmANOVA amp V ↓ lat V ↑ 10 Van Campen et al. (1996) N=40 (f:20) M=26, [20–30] ABR Tone bursts (0.5 and 2 kHz) Duration 10 ms FT=RT 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5 ms Monourally 103 dB peSPL (peak) 87.5 dB peSPL (peak-to-peak) Rate 6.3/s ANOVA Exp1 (RT 0.5 VS 1 ms): amp onset and offset V ↓ (both 0.5 and 2 kHz) lat onset and offset V ↑ Exp2 (RT 0.5 VS 5 ms): amp offset V ↓ for 2 kHz 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 10 (for 0.5 kHz ns) lat offset V ↑ .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 11 Kodera et al. (1979) N=8 [24-32] ABR, ERP 1 kHz tone bursts; duration 43ms; FT=RT 5, 10, 20 ms Monourally (right ear) headphones 60 dB SPL for 5ms RT, for other equivalent db SPL Rate 2/s order balanced within and between subjects ANOVA amp ABR↓; amp ABR-Na↓; amp Na-Pa↓; amp Pa-Nb↓; amp P1-N1↓; amp N1-P2: ns lat ABR↑; lat Na↑; lat Pa↑; lat P1↑; lat N1↑ lat P2↑ 7 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 12 Skinner & Antinoro (1971) N=20 (f:12) [18–24] ERP Exp1: 1 kHz tone bursts; plateau duration: 10ms Exp2: 1 kHz tone burst; durations at 0.01ms RT condition: 0.2, 0.4, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 ms; durations at 5ms RT condition: 1, 5, 10, 20, and 40 ms Exp1: 0.01, 0.5, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 ms Exp2: 0.01 and 5 ms Monourally 40 dB SPL NA Exp1: amp Na-Pa and Pa-Nb ↓; amp P0-Na and Nb-Pb ↓ at 25ms RT condition, in other condition ns Exp 2: amp Na-Pa, Pa-Nb,P0-Na ↓ 8 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 13 Onishi and Davis (1968) N=7 Adults ERP Exp1: 1 kHz tone bursts; plateau durations: 0, 3, 10, 30, 100, and 300 ms; FT=RT Exp2: 1 kHz tone bursts; plateau duration: 2.5 ms; FT=RT Exp1: 3 or 30 ms Exp2: 3, 10, 30, 50, 100, and 300 ms Binaurally Earphones, Exp1: ISI: 2500ms 15–85 dB SPL (varied) Exp2: ISI: 5000ms 45–85 dB SPL (varied) only mean and sd Exp1: amp N1-P2 ↓ Exp2: amp N1-P2 ↓ (beyond about 30 ms) lat N1 ↑ 6 Skinner & Jones (1968) N=40 (f:30) [18–24] ERP 1 kHz tone bursts; plateau duration: 75 ms 10 μs, 5, 10, 25, 50 ms Earphones, 30, 50, 70, and 90 dB SPL *ISI: 3800ms random order only means comparison amp P1-N2↓ lat P1 ns lat N2 ns 8 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 14 Elfner et al. (1976) Exp1: N=7 [18–22] Exp2: N=12 [19–27] ERP Exp1: 1 kHz sinusoids durations: 5000 ms; offset duration: 50 ms Exp2: 1 kHz sinusoids durations: 1000, 3000, and 5000 ms (random between participants); offset duration: 50 ms Exp1: 0, 50, 150, 500, 1500, 4960 ms Exp2: 50, 100, 300, 500, 700, 1000 ms Binaurally earphones, 45 dB SPL Exp1: ISI: 10000 ms Exp2: ISI: 10000, 12000, 14000 ms (random) RT conditions separate in different trials, trials order randomized Exp1: NA Exp2: ANOVA Exp1: amp N1-P2↓ from 50 to 500, then ns Exp2: amp N1-P2 ns 8 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 15 Zito (1978) N=10 adults ERP Tone bursts (0.5, 1, 3 kHz); plateau duration: 200 ms 5, 250, 500 ms 70 dB SPL ISI: 800 ms NA lat N1↑ lat P2↑ 6 Prasher (1980) N=15 (f:7) Adults ERP 1 kHz tone and white- noise burst; duration: 500 ms; FT=RT 0.02, 2.5 and 50 ms Monourally (right ear) Headphones, 80 and 40 dB SPL Rate 1/2000 ms *ISI: 1500 ms T-test 2.5ms →50 ms amp N1-P2↓ (for tone, but not for noise); lat N1 ns; 20μs →2.5 ms amp N1P2 ns 7 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 16 Putnam & Roth (1990) N=16 (f:8) Mean Age=22 [18–30] ERP 1 kHz tones: durations: 51, 55, 60 and 65 ms (correspond to each RT condition); FT=RT 3, 15, 30 and 45 ms Binaurally Headphones, 110 dBA SPL ISI: 8400ms controlled permutation order 2 runs of paradigm ANOVA amp N110 ↓ (only 1st run); amp P190 ↓; amp P300 ↓; Slow wave: ↓; 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 17 Hämäläine n et al. (2007) TD N=20 (f:7) Mean Age=9.3(±0.4 1) [8.83–10.5] RD N=19 (f:10) Mean Age=9.5 (±0.33) [8.83–10.5] ERP pairs of tones Tones pairs 1st tone composed of sinusoids (0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 kHz) 2nd tone in 5ms RT of sinusoids (0.75, 1.5, 2.25, 3 kHz); in 80ms RT of sinusoids (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 kHz); 1st tone duration: 100ms; 2nd tone duration: 150ms; FT: 5ms; WPI: 10 or 130 ms 1st tone 80 ms; 2nd tone 10 or 80 ms Binaurally Loudspeakers, 75 ± 0.5 dB SPL ISI: 1000-5000 ms MANOVA amp N1: ↓ TD (In 10ms WPI) RD ns 9 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 18 Hämäläine n et al. (2011) TD N=11 (f:5) Mean Age=24.5 (±3.9) Dyslexia N=11 (f:6) Mean Age=26.0 (±10.1) ERP 0.5 kHz sine tone; duration: 200 ms; FT: 50 ms 10, 30, 60, 90, 120 ms Binaurally Headphones, 75 dB SPL ISI:2500–3500 ms randomly with equal probability ANOVA amp N1↓ (both groups); amp P2↓ (both groups); amp Na ns; amp Ta ns; amp Tb↓ (only in dyslexia); lat N1↑ (both groups); lat P2 ns; lat Na↑ 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 19 Stefanics et al. (2011) TD N=20 (f:13) Mean Age=8.6 (±0.85) [7.25– 10.08] Dyslexia N=18 (f:9) Mean Age=9.25 (±1.08) [7.42– 11.41] ERP 0.5 kHz sine tone; duration: 200 ms; FT: 15 ms standard: 15 ms; deviant: 90 ms Binaurally Headphones, 75 dB SPL ISI: 500 ms Oddball condition: (RT, Intensity and Duration deviants) Blocked condition: (each stimulus type in separate blocks) ANOVA Oddball condition amp P1 ↓ (in Dyslexia group) lat P1 ↑ lat P1 Dyslexia > TD amp N1c (FT7-FT8)↓ lat N1c ns amp N2 ↓ lat N2 ↑ -MMN Blocked condition amp P1 ns lat P1 ↑ 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 20 amp N1c (FT7-FT8) ↓ amp N1c (FT7-FT8) Dyslexia group at 90ms > TD at 15ms lat N1c ns amp N2 ↓ lat N2 ns .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 21 Easwar et al. (2012a) N=16 (f: 9) Mean Age=23.9 [20.3–29.3] ERP Syllabes (/afil/ and /fi/); duration: 150 ms 21.7 and 79.1 ms Monourally (ears alternated across subjects) 60 dB SPL Rate 0.49/1000 ms *ISI: 1853 ms conditions assessed in separate sessions conducted within a seven-day period rmANOVA amp N1-P2 ↓ lat N1 ↑ lat P2 ↑ 9 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 22 Easwar et al., (2012b) N=16 (f=9) Mean Age=24.2 (±2.1) ERP 1 kHz tone bursts duration 90 ms FT=RT 7.5 and 20 ms Monourally (ears alternated across subjects) 80 dB SPL ISI:1910 ms conditions assessed in separate sessions conducted within a seven-day period ANOVA amp N1-P2 ns lat N1 ns lat P2 ns 9 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 23 Carpenter and Shahin (2013) Children N=15 (f:7) [4–6.11] Adult N=12 (f:6) [18–25] for analysis 3 groups: N=6 [4–5] N=6 [6] N=15 [18–25] ERP speech tokens /ba/ and /wa/, and a /ba/ with a /wa/-like RT; duration 300 ms NA in text /ba/ RT< /wa/RT Binaurally Earphones, 60–65 dB SPL ISI: 1500–2000 ms ANOVA amp N1-P2↓ (in adults and 6 years old, but not in 4-5 year old children) 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 24 Lyytinen et al., (1992) N=6 [18–27] Oddball, ERP 1 kHz tones duration 50 ms standard: 24 ms; deviant: 2 ms Binaurally Headphones, 74 dB SPL ISI: 750 ms oddball MANOVA and rmANOVA +MMN (150-250ms) for RT deviant +P3, late positive shift (250-450ms) for RT deviant 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 25 Hämäläine n et al. (2008) Short WPI condition TD N=30 (f:14) Mean Age=9.4 (±0.25) [8.5– 10.0] RD N=22 (f:13) Mean Age=9.4 (±0.33) [8.8–10.3] Long WPI Oddball Pairs of 0.5 kHz tones 1st tone duration: 100 ms; 2nd tone duration: 150 ms; FT: 5 ms Short WPI condition: 10 ms; Long WPI condition: 255 ms Standard pairs: 1st tone 80 ms, 2nd tone 130 ms Deviant pairs: 1st tone 80 ms, 2nd tone 10 ms Binaurally Loudspeakers, 75 dB SPL pairs of tones oddball Temporal principal components analysis (PCA); MANOVA Short WPI condition: +MMN (124 ms) for RT deviant; -LDN for RT deviant; amp MMN ↑ in right mastoid (both TD and RD); amp LDN ns; Long WPI condition +MMN (119 ms) for RT deviant; +LDN (375–645 ms) for RT deviant; 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 26 condition TD N=25 (f:13) Mean Age=9.4 (±0.33) [8.5–10.0] RD N=21 (f:12) Mean Age=9.4 (±0.33) [8.8– 10.3] MMN RD> TD at fronto- central channels; LDN TD > RD at right frontal and central channels and left mastoid channel .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 27 Thomson et al. (2009) Exp1 N=12 (f:7) Mean Age=26 [20–42] Exp2 N=14 (f:11) Mean Age=26 [20–42] Oddball 0.5 kHz sine tones; duration: 260 ms; FT: 50 ms Exp2 Standart: 15 or 50 ms IM Exp1 15 and 185 ms Exp2 50 ms, 15 ms intensity matched to 50 ms (IM) and 15 ms intensity not matched (INM) Binaurally Headphones, 75 dB SPL ISI: 240 ms Exp1 counterbalanced oddball Exp2 oddball ANOVA Exp1 amp N1 ↓; +MMN (150–250 ms) for both deviants; Exp2 amp N1 ↓; when 50 ms standart: -MMN for 15 ms IM deviant +MMN (but ns) (175– 275ms) for 15ms INM deviant when 15ms IM standart 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 28 +MMN (175–275ms) for 50ms deviant Plakas, et al. (2013) Control N=13 Typical readers at risk N=15 Dyslexic at risk N=10 Mean Age=3,4 Oddball 0.5 kHz tone; duration: 155 ms; FT: 50 ms standart 15 ms; deviant 90 ms Binaurally Speakers, 75 dB SPL ISI: 450 ms oddball ANOVA Control +MMR (peak at 346 ms) for RT deviant Typical readers at risk: –MMR for RT deviant Dyslexics at risk –MMR for RT deviant MMR in control > MMR at risk MMR Typical readers at risk = MMR Dyslexic at risk 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 29 Moberly et al., (2014) N=13 (f=8) Mean Age=25.2 [19–42] Oddball speech tokens /ba/ and /wa/ ART/ba/–FRT/ba/; ART/wa/–FRT/wa/; ART/wa/–FRT/ba/; duration: 370ms ART/ba/ 10 ms, ART/wa/70 ms; FRT/ba/ 30 ms, FRT/wa/110 ms Binaurally Free-field, 70 dB SPL ISI:1000 ms counterbalanced oddball ANOVA +MMN (150–350 ms) for ART deviants +MMN (150–350 ms) for FRT deviants MMN for FRT deviant>MMN for ART deviant 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 30 Hakvoort, et al. (2015) Group no FR no dyslexia N = 15 Mean Age=11.96 (±0.6) FR no dyslexia N = 24 Mean Age=11.9 (±0.6) FR dyslexia N = 15 Oddball 523 Hz sine tone duration: 400 ms; FT: 50 ms standart: 15 ms; deviant: 90, 180 and 270 ms 80 dB SPL ISI: 250 ms oddball ANOVA +MMN (peak at 260 ms) (all groups) +LDN (peak at 420 ms) (all groups) no difference between groups 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 31 Mean Age=11.84 (±0.5) Moberly et al., (2016) N=20, cochlear implants [18–62] Oddball speech tokens /ba/ and /wa/; ART/ba/–FRT/ba/; ART/wa/–FRT/wa/; ART/wa/–FRT/ba/; duration: 370 ms ART/ba/ 10 ms, ART/wa/ 70 ms; FRT/ba/ 30 ms, FRT/wa/ 110 ms Binaurally Speakers, 68 dB SPL ISI:1000 ms counterbalanced oddball ANOVA +MMN (150–350 ms) for ART deviants +MMN (150–350 ms) for FRT deviants MMN (150–350 ms) for FRT deviant=MMN (150– 350 ms) for ART deviant 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 32 Ou and Law (2016) [+Per+Pro] (Good tone perception and production) N=20 Mean Age=22.0(±0. 59) [+Per–Pro] (Good tone perception and poor production) N=19 Oddball Cantonese tones /fu/; duration 500 ms 120 and 70 ms Binaurally Earphones, 85 dB SPL ISI: 800 ms counterbalanced oddball ANOVA; cluster-based permutation tests; T-tests [+Per+Pro] +MMN (150–200 ms) when 70 ms deviant +MMN (150–238 ms) when 120 ms deviant [+Per–Pro] +MMN (150–200 ms) when 70 ms deviant –MMN when 120 ms deviant 10 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 33 Mean Age=21.24 (±0.84) .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 34 Peter. et al., (2016) Control: N=17 (f:5) Dyslexia N=17 (f:3) Mean Age=8.9 (±1.4) [6.0–11.8] Oddball speech tokens /ba/ and /wa/ standart: ART/ba/– FRT/ba/ ART deviant: ART/midway/–FRT/ba/ (partial deviant) ART/wa/–FRT/ba/ (full deviant) FRT deviant: ART/ba/–FRT/wa/ (full deviant) ART/ba/–FRT/midway/ (partial deviant)l duration: 320 ms ART/ba/ 10 ms, ART/midway/ 40 ms, ART/wa/ 70 ms; FRT/ba/ 30 ms, FRT/midway/ 70 ms FRT/wa/ 110 ms Binaurally Loudspeakers, 75 dB SPL ISI: 180 ms oddball Independent T-test, cluster- based permutation tests Control: –MMR for both ART deviants +MMR (200–300 ms) for both FRT deviants Dyslexia –MMR for both ART deviants –MMR for partial FRT deviant +MMR (200–300 ms) for full FRT deviant 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 35 Ou and Law (2017) [+Per+Pro] (Good tone perception and production) N=20 Mean Age=22.00 (±0.59) [+Per–Pro] (Good tone perception and poor production) N=19 Oddball Cantonese tones /fu/ duration 500 ms 120 and 70 ms Binaurally Earphones, 85 dB SPL ISI: 800 ms counterbalanced oddball ANOVA; cluster-based permutation tests [+Per+Pro] +MMN (150–200 ms) when 70 ms deviant +MMN (150–238 ms) when 120 ms deviant [+Per–Pro] +MMN (150–200 ms) when 70 ms deviant –MMN when 120 ms deviant [–Per–Pro] –MMN for both deviants 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 36 Mean Age=21.24 (±0.84) [–Per–Pro] (Poor tone perception and production) N=19 Mean Age=21.20 (±2.84) amp P2 ↓ (70 ms generate more positive response then 120 ms) for 70 ms: [+Per+Pro]> [+Per–Pro]=[–Per–Pro] for 120 ms: no difference between groups .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 37 Peter, et al. (2018) 6–8 years N=12 (f:6) Mean Age=7.18 (±0.29) 8–10 years N=12 (f:7) Mean Age=8.87 (±0.44) 10–12 years N=12 (f:7) Mean Age=10.92 Oddball speech tokens /ba/ and /wa/ standart: ART/ba/– FRT/ba/ ART deviant: ART/wa/–FRT/ba/ FRT deviant: ART/ba/–FRT/wa/ duration: 320ms ART/ba/ 10 ms, ART/wa/ 70 ms; FRT/ba/ 30 ms, FRT/wa/ 110 ms Binaurally Speakers, 75 dB SPL ISI: 180 ms oddball ANOVA; cluster-based permutation tests 6–8 years +MMR (200–400 ms) for ART deviant +MMR (200–400 ms) for FRT deviant 8–10 years +MMR (200–400 ms) for ART deviant +MMR (200–400 ms) for FRT deviant 10–12 years –MMR for ART deviant +MMR (204–316 ms) for FRT deviant Adults –MMR for ART deviant 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 38 (±0.54) Adults N=12 (f:6) Mean Age=31.05 (±4.41) +MMR (168–248 ms) for FRT deviant .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 39 Choisdealb ha et al. (2022) Seven months N=74 Mean Age=7 months, 3 days (±5 days) Eleven months N=96 Mean Age=11 months, 2 days (±5 days) Oddball sine tone or SSN (speech shaped noise) standart:15 ms 10 deviants: 161.1 –292.7 ms (step of 14.6 ms) Binaurally Speakers oddball regression model +MMR (300–460 ms) MMR↑ with deviant RT↑ MMR more negative with Age↑ MMR for tones=MMN for SSN 11 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 40 Le Vere et al. (1976) M=20.3 [19–23] Rhythmic activity Tones (125 Hz) 3.24 ms (fast RT) and 7.5s (slow RT) Auditory speaker system; free field ANOVA At slow wave Mean cortical desynchronization ↓ At fast wave Mean cortical desynchronization nc 8 Van Hirtum et al. (2019) Dyslexia: N=20 (f:10) [18–25] Typical readers: N=18 (f:10) [18–25] ASSR amplitude-modulated one-octave white noise bands centered 1 kHz. Noise bands were 100% amplitude-modulated amplitude- modulated at approximately 4, 10, 20 and 40 Hz (sinusoidal envelope modulation, 10 and 30 ms RT) Monourally (right ear) Earphones, 85 dB SPL linear mixed models, t-test 4 Hz: ↑ for RT30 and ↓ for RT10 10 Hz: RT10 and RT30 ↓ dyslexia only 20 Hz: RT30 ↓ dyslexia only 12 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 41 20 Hz: higher synchronization of beta activity for RT30 related to better literacy skills 40 Hz: ↓ SNR dyslexia only in the right hemisphere 40 Hz: correlation of neural

activity in the right hemisphere with literacy and phonology in participants with dyslexia .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 42 146 List of abbreviations for Table 1 147 148 ABR – auditory brainstem response 149 ASSR – auditory steady-state response 150 ERP – event-related potentials 151 MMN (xxx ms) – mismatch negativity (latency of the component) 152 MMR (xxx ms) – mismatch response (latency of the component) 153 LDN (xxx ms) – late discriminative negativity (latency of the component) 154 RT – rise time 155 FT – fall time 156 ART – amplitude rise time 157 FRT – formant rise time 158 ISI – inter-stimulus interval 159 WPI – within-pair interval 160 lat – latency 161 amp – amplitude .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 43 162 ns – not significant 163 I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII – number of ABR waves 164 SPL – sound pressure level 165 nHL– normalized Hearing Level 166 167 TD – typically developing 168 RD – reading disabilities 169 FR – family risk (of dyslexia) 170 171 + – the presence of the response 172 – – the absence of the response 173 ↑ – response increases with increasing of RT 174 ↓ – response decreases with increasing of RT 175 176 177 Converted values are marked with an asterisk .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 44 178 179 Fig. 1. A PRISMA flow-chart representing a flow of information through the 180 different phases of a systematic review. 181 182 Seven articles were excluded from the study due to unavailability of full texts. This was 183 due to the fact that the articles were published a long time ago (1964–1994) and their full texts 184 were not digitized or not available [7–13]. Thirty-seven included studies were divided into 185 groups according to EEG responses studied and organized in the Table 1 and in text according 186 to the latency of the brain responses, from earlier to later evoked potentials. The studies 187 included in the final review ranged in date from 1968 to 2022 (Fig. 2), with an 11–year gap in 188 rise time studies (there were no published studies between 1996 and 2007) and current gap 189 within the last four years. 190 191 Fig. 2. Histogram of RT studies paradigms over years. 192 193 The main categories into which we classified the studies are: (1) early latency 194 components (auditory brainstem response N=10, (2) middle latency components (Na, Pa, Nb, 195 N=2), (3) late latency components (P1, N1, P2, N2, P3, N=14), (4) difference waves studies 196 (mismatch negativity or mismatch response (MMN and MMR), later positive shift, late 197 discriminative negativity (LDN) – 13 studies and one study on Auditory Steady-State Response 198 (ASSR) and one on mean cortical desynchronization both categorized as Others. Some studies 199 described more than one category of EEG-response and, thus, were reviewed in several 200 sections. Next we describe the results separately for each category. 201 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 45 202 Early latency components (auditory brainstem response, ABR) 203 Auditory brainstem response (ABR) is an early potential that occurs in response to 204 auditory stimuli, reflecting neural activity along the auditory pathways from the inner ear to the 205 brainstem. ABR consists of a series of waves (denoted as I–VII) that appear within the first 10– 206 15 ms after the sound stimulus onset and reflect early auditory processing steps. As ABR occurs 207 within such early latencies, the typical RT studied in this paradigm varies from 0.5 till 5 ms. 208 RT has been studied with ABR for a relatively long time, and no modern studies relevant to the 209 review were found. The most recent study included in this review dates back to 1996. The final 210 review included 10 articles investigating brainstem evoked potentials. The overwhelming 211 majority of studies was conducted on adults, only one of them included 11–13 weeks old infants 212 as one of the experimental groups. However, no difference in the results was found between 213 the adult group and the infant group [14]. 214 The results obtained in studies of RT perception using ABR are quite congruent. One of 215 the main conclusions made by the authors in their articles related to the latency and amplitude 216 of wave V: its latency increases while the amplitude decreases with the RT increase[14–18]. 217 This tendency remains with any type of stimuli (noise or tone bursts, tone pips or clicks). 218 An increase in latency with an increase in stimulus RT is also observed in other early 219 components of brainstem potentials: from waves I to VII, however, the results depended on 220 stimuli parameters. For example, at 40 dB SPL and for stimuli with the so-called “fast rise 221 time” (10 µs), the latency of waves VI–VII first decreases (between 10 µs and 0.5 ms) and then 222 gradually increases, although this effect was statistically insignificant [19]. In the study of 223 Hecox & Deegan (1983) an increase in the latency of wave V with an increase in RT was also 224 found in most experimental conditions, however, no significant changes in amplitude were 225 found [20]. The study by Suzuki & Horiuchi (1981) was distinguished by its findings of 226 different tendencies depending on stimuli presented. When utilizing 2–kHz tone pips, a .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 46 227 decrease in wave V latency with RT increase was observed at certain stimulus intensities (only 228 30–40 dB nHL). At the same time, a RT change did not significantly affect wave V amplitude. 229 In contrast, with 0.5–kHz tone pips, an increase in stimulus RT correlated with an increase of 230 the mean wave V amplitude and concurrently, the mean wave V latency also exhibited a 231 tendency to increase. However, these results should be treated with caution as they were 232 obtained on a limited sample (N=8, all females) in specific conditions: during sleep induced by 233 administration of pentobarbital calcium before the test [21]. 234 One of the articles reported morphologically similar to onset brainstem response offset 235 brainstem response which occurs by long-duration tone burst (>8 ms) within 8 ms after stimulus 236 offset [22]. Offset ABR was even more affected by stimulus RT than onset ABR. It was 237 demonstrated that both offset and onset wave V amplitude increased and both offset and onset 238 wave V latency decreased (for both 0.5 and 2 kHz stimuli) for 1 ms RT in comparison to 0.5 239 ms RT. In the block where only two RTs (0.5 vs 5 ms) varied with a constant fall time, the 240 difference were detected only for the offset ABR: offset ABR latency increased for both types 241 of stimuli (0.5 and 2 kHz) and offset ABR amplitude decreased for 2 kHz stimuli with longer 242 RT [22]. 243 Stimulus polarity is a physical characteristic of a stimulus that might influence the RT 244 effect. Stimulus polarity refers to the initial deflection of the transducer diaphragm in relation 245 to the tympanic membrane during stimulus presentation: a rarefaction stimulus causes the 246 earphone diaphragm to move outward initially, resulting in an outward movement of the 247 tympanic membrane, while a condensation polarity stimulus leads to an inward movement of 248 the diaphragm and consequently an inward movement of the tympanic membrane [23]. Most 249 ABR studies included in the current review used alternating stimulus polarity (rarefaction and 250 condensation), thereby cancelling out the polarity-specific effect. Additionally, some 251 investigations within the ABR-field have explicitly considered stimulus polarity as one of the .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 47 252 influential acoustic parameters, alongside other stimulus characteristics. Amplitude values of 253 main ABR components in study of Salt & Thornton depended on polarity of stimuli presented: 254 direction of amplitude changes was different in rarefaction vs condensation stimuli. In 255 particular, I, II, III, VI amplitudes in response to rarefaction stimuli tended to be lower with RT 256 increase and vice versa on condensation stimuli. Amplitude of peak V, on the contrary, arose 257 with RT in response to rarefaction stimuli and lowered with RT in response to condensation 258 [24]. However, no statistical testing was applied. Besides, the other study which used clicks of 259 different polarity as stimuli [16] showed the same direction of amplitude changes in both 260 stimuli types. However, the latencies in all RT conditions were longer for condensation slope 261 stimuli, and amplitudes were contrariwise higher for rarefaction stimuli [16]. In the case of 262 short stimuli with a RT of 170-580 µs, there is a linear tendency towards an increase in the 263 latency of the main components (waves I–VI) with an increase in RT for stimuli of both 264 polarities [24]. 265 266 Middle latency components 267 Middle latency components are considered to be driven by the primary auditory cortex 268 with a substantial contribution of thalamic-cortical pathways and elicited from 10 to 80 ms after 269 stimulus onset [25]. In this group of components, several successive peaks are distinguished 270 (P0, Na, Pa, Nb, Pb). Two studies[26,27] demonstrate the modulation of middle latency 271 components of evoked potentials by RT duration in a group of neurotypical adults. Tone bursts 272 were used as stimuli. In both of these studies short RT durations were used (up to 25 ms). In 273 [27], peak-to-peak amplitude of Na–Pa, Pa–Nb components decreased with RT increased 274 across all conditions, while peak-to-peak amplitude of P0–Na and Nb–Pb components 275 decreased only in the longest RT condition (25 ms). Notably, no statistical analyses were used 276 in this study, so the presented results should be considered with caution. In a later study by .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 48 277 Kodera et al. (1979) [26], the decrease in Na–Pa, Pa–Nb peak-to-peak amplitudes with RT 278 increased was verified statistically. This article also showed a delay in the Na and Pa 279 components latencies with RTs prolongation. 280 P1 281 The P1 component is a positive peak in the auditory ERP, occurring approximately 50– 282 100 ms post-stimulus in adults (>100 ms in children), and originating primarily in the primary 283 and secondary auditory cortex. In neurophysiological research, P1 is optimally recorded from 284 central midline electrodes, particularly Cz referenced to mastoids or earlobes, and serves as a 285 biomarker for auditory cortical development and central auditory pathway integrity [28]. P1 286 has rarely been an object of interest in RT studies as it is not very prominent in adults: one 287 study in children and one in adults. Stefanics and colleagues [29] examined P1 modulation by 288 RT duration in dyslexia and typically reading children (aged 8–10 years) in longitudinal study 289 that includes oddball and block conditions. Decrease in P1 amplitude with RT increase was 290 observed only in the group of participants with dyslexia, but not in the control group, where P1 291 amplitudes were equivalent across RT conditions. This effect was specific only for oddball 292 conditions; no significant effects were observed for P1 amplitude in the blocked condition. 293 Authors attribute this difference to greater responsiveness of the P1 component in oddball 294 condition, which was related to different probability of occurrence of the stimuli. Both groups 295 demonstrate prolongation in P1 latency with RT increasing in all conditions. The same 296 prolongation was observed in Kodera et al. (1979b) [26]. In this study P1 was considered as 297 part of P1–N1 peak-to-peak amplitude, which demonstrates significant decrease with RT 298 prolongation. In Skinner and Jones (1968) [30] work no significant effects for P1 latency were 299 observed. 300 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 49 301 N1 302 The N1 (or N100) is a prominent negative-going component of the auditory ERP 303 waveform that follows P1 and typically peaks approximately 80–120 milliseconds after 304 stimulus onset. It is primarily generated in the auditory cortex, including areas within the 305 superior temporal gyrus (such as Heschl's gyrus and the planum temporale). In EEG recordings, 306 the N1 component typically exhibits maximal amplitude over fronto-central scalp locations and 307 is therefore commonly observed and analyzed at midline fronto-central electrodes such as Fz, 308 FCz, and Cz [31]. 309 Of all the articles included in the review, thirteen examined the effects of RT on the N1 310 component. According to reviewed studies, reduction in N1 amplitude with RT prolongation is 311 a common pattern for neurotypical adults. In [32] N1 amplitude linearly decreases across RT 312 prolongation from 3 to 45 ms, but only in the first of two runs of the paradigm. Thomson and 313 colleagues (2009) [33] shows that N1 amplitude also decreases in longer RT condition, such as 314 50 and 185 ms. These results are confirmed in the additional part of that study, where stimuli 315 with different RT were equalized in intensity. Similar reduction of N1 amplitude in longer RT 316 conditions were obtained for groups of typically reading adults [34] and children [35]. In one 317 of the studies[26], N1 was assessed as P1–N1 peak-to-peak amplitude, which also demonstrates 318 significant decrease with RT prolongation from 5 to 20 ms. 319 Three studies reported significant enhancement of N1 latency with RT 320 increase[26,34,36]. A similar result was shown in earlier papers [37,38], but was not confirmed 321 by statistical analysis. In the study by Eswar and colleagues[39], the difference in N1 latency 322 between RT conditions was not significant, which probably related to minor differences 323 between RT conditions used in this work (7.5 vs 20 ms). However, even larger contrast (such 324 as 2.5 vs 50 ms) was also insignificant for 1000 Hz tone burst and white noise burst [40]. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 50 325 Two studies examined N1 modulation by RT in a group with speech impairment. In 326 Hämäläinen et al., (2007) [35] in a pair of stimuli with a short within-pair interval, the amplitude 327 decreases at a longer RT condition (80 ms), but only in typically developing (TD) children. In 328 the group of children with reading disabilities, the N1 amplitude was equal across RT 329 conditions. It is important to note that stimuli differed not only in RT but also in frequency and 330 statistical comparison of different RT conditions was not performed. The more recent work of 331 this group [34] with stimuli of the equal frequencies showed decrease in N1 amplitude and 332 prolongation of its latency with RT increase in both typical reading and dyslexic adults groups. 333 334 P2 335 The P2 component is a positive deflection in ERP that follows the N1 component and 336 occurs approximately 150–200 ms post-stimulus. It is generated in the auditory association 337 cortex and surrounding areas and thus, is typically recorded from central and frontocentral 338 electrode sites (Cz, FCz) and suggests to reflect higher-order sound processing, auditory feature 339 integration, and early attentional mechanisms [31]. 340 Nine of the papers included in the review consider RT effects associated with the P2 341 component. Most works estimated P2 effects as related N1–P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes. N1– 342 P2 peak-to-peak amplitude was considered in seven studies[17,36,37,39–42]. N1–P2 amplitude 343 tends to decrease with prolongation of the RT. In Onishi & Davis work [37] RT changes did 344 not affect the N1–P2 amplitude when RTs were less than 30 ms. Decrease in N1–P2 amplitude 345 was observed only as RT is increased beyond about 30 ms, but no statistical analysis was 346 performed. In Kodera et al. (1979) [26] no significant difference was shown for N1–P2, but RT 347 durations used in this study were quite short (5–20 ms), which probably not enough for N1–P2 348 modulation. A similar result appears in a more recent study[39], where no difference was found 349 between 7.5 and 20 ms RT conditions for 1000 Hz tone burst. [40] observed significant .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 51 350 decreases in P2 for 50 ms RT condition compared to 2.5 ms RT condition for 1000 Hz tone 351 burst, but not for white-noise burst. In the study by Elfner et al. [42], decrease in N1–P2 352 amplitude was shown for prolongation RT from 50 ms to 150 ms and 500 ms, although 353 continued prolongation from 500 to 1500 and 4960 ms of the RT duration did not produce a 354 change in N1–P2 amplitude. However, further statistical analysis in the Experiment 2 of this 355 study showed that the observed RTs prolongation effects are only at the level of tendency and 356 are not statistically significant. Two studies[36,41] used more natural types of stimuli, such as 357 speech tokens. N1–P2 amplitude decreased in longer RT (such as 79.1 ms in Easwar et al.; in 358 Carpenter & Shanin exact RT not reported) in both studies. However, the effect observed in 359 adults and 6-years old children, was not present in early childhood (4–5 years) [41]. 360 Two studies [32,34] considered P2 as an absolute baseline-to-peak value, not as a peak- 361 to-peak amplitude. Putnam & Roth [32] showed linear decrease of P2 amplitude (considered 362 as P190 component) with RT prolongation that included RT ranged from 3 to 45 ms. This result 363 was confirmed in the study by Hämäläinen and colleagues (2011) [34] both for control and 364 dyslexic adults groups with RT used from 10 to 120 ms. 365 As in case of N1, P2 latency demonstrated delay with RT prolongation[26,36]. At first, 366 this effect was described in [38] as shifting of slow V potential (N1–P2 peak-to-peak 367 component), but was not statistically validated. Later it was confirmed statistically[17,36]. 368 Nonetheless, in some papers, the differences in P2 latency between different RT conditions 369 were not significant[34,39]. 370 371 T–complex 372 Two of the studies included in the review examined RT effects not only in the central 373 but also in the temporal channels. Näätänen & Picton [43] define a projection of the P1-N1-P2 374 components to the temporal region as T-complex. The T-complex includes three peaks: N1a .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 52 375 (or Na) (75–95 ms), N1b (or Ta) (100–115 ms), and N1c (or Tb) (130–170 ms). In the study of 376 Hämäläinen et al. (2011) that included neurotypical adults and adults with dyslexia, Na and Tа 377 amplitude did not change between RT conditions in both groups, while amplitude of Tb 378 decreased with RT prolongation in a group of adults with dyslexia, but not in the control group 379 of neurotypical adults. There was also prolongation in Na component latency in both groups. 380 In a group of children (7–10 years) Stefanics and colleagues [29] also showed decrease of N1c 381 (at FT7–FT8 sites) amplitude with long (90 ms) RT in oddball condition, but in the block 382 condition RT effects were observed only in dyslexic group. No RT effects on N1c latency were 383 observed. 384 385 N2 386 The N2 component is a negative deflection in the auditory ERP that follows the P2 387 component and occurs approximately 200–250 ms post-stimulus onset. It originates primarily 388 from frontal cortical regions including the anterior cingulate cortex, which is typically recorded 389 at frontocentral electrode sites (Fz, FCz) [44]. Only one study [29] considered N2 as a target 390 for the RT effects in children from 7 to 11 years. Similar to the other components, N2 391 demonstrated decrease in amplitude and prolongation of latency with the RT increase. One 392 more study by Skinner & Jones [30] considered N2 as part of the P1-N2 complex, where the 393 difference between P1 and N2 components was taken as the amplitude of the auditory evoked 394 response. It was shown that P1-N2 decreases with RT increase. N2 latency did not show RT 395 effects, but statistical analyses were not performed. Even though the effects of RT on the N2 396 component were not considered in other works, we can assume decrease in amplitude and 397 latency delay when the RT is prolonged by looking at the figures[34,36]. 398 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 53 399 P3 400 The P3 (or P300) component is a prominent positive wave occurring approximately 401 250–500 ms following auditory stimulus presentation, generated by distributed neural networks 402 involving frontal, temporal and parietal cortical regions. P3 is reliably recorded at midline 403 electrodes (Fz, Cz, Pz) with maximum amplitude typically at Pz [45]. One study [32] 404 considered the RT effects for late positive component (P300). Amplitude of P300 (at Pz 405 electrodes) significantly decreased with RT prolongation from 3 to 45 ms, however the RT 406 prolongation was also accompanied with changes of the total duration of stimuli that can also 407 influence the observed change [32]. 408 409 Difference waves (MMN, MMR, Late positive shift, LDN) 410 Many studies investigating RT processing have employed the oddball paradigm, where 411 deviant stimuli with different RTs are embedded within streams of standard stimuli with fixed 412 RTs [33,46–48]. These deviant stimuli typically elicit a mismatch negativity (MMN) or 413 mismatch response (MMR). MMN is obtained as a difference between ERP in response to 414 standard (frequent) stimuli and ERP in response to deviant (rare) stimuli. Sometimes, especially 415 in children, the response to a different stimulus may appear as a more late positive component 416 on a difference wave, which is known as a Mismatch response (MMR). Mismatch Response 417 (MMR) refers to the corresponding response in infants and young children, which can be 418 positive (pMMR) or negative (nMMR) in polarity, with a broader scalp distribution and more 419 variable latency than adult MMN, reflecting the developing auditory system [49]. Twelve of 420 the reviewed papers examined sensitivity to RT changes using this paradigm, with the MMN 421 component serving as the primary measure of distinguishability between standard and deviant 422 stimuli. Two studies considered also late discriminative negativity (LDN), a later (from 400 ms 423 post-stimulus) component at the difference wave evoked by a deviant stimulus and also .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 54 424 suggested to be localized in associative areas of the auditory cortex. Although originally LDN 425 was called the late MMN [50,51], included studies considered it as a separate component to 426 highlight the difference in time of occurrence and to separate the RT effects. 427 The first study reported MMN (in time window 150–250 ms) elicited by RT deviants 428 in neurotypical adults, used short RT durations (24 ms in standard and 2 ms in deviant) [52], 429 also late positive shift in differenсе waves (at time window at 280–500 ms) was described in 430 this work. Later study of neurotypical adults [33] used two RT durations (15 and 185 ms). Each 431 type of stimulus was used as standards and as deviants in different blocks. Both types of deviant 432 elicited MMN response (in time window 150–250 ms) in frontal and temporal areas. In the 433 second part of this study, four types of stimuli were used: one with long RT (50 ms), two with 434 RT 15 ms (one of them was intensity matched to stimulus with 50 ms RT, and other was not), 435 and one with short RT stimuli that was equivalent in intensity to long RT stimulus (intensity 436 matched deviant). This contrast was introduced to separate the influences of intensity and RT 437 effects, as changing RT inevitably influences intensity especially with long RT. When 50 ms 438 RT stimuli were used as standard intensity-not-matched deviant with shorter RT elicited a 439 MMN response at time window 175–275 ms (but not significant), while intensity-matched 440 deviant did not elicit any MMN at all. However, in the exchanged condition where intensity- 441 matched 15 ms RT stimuli were used as standards and 50 ms RT stimuli were used as deviants, 442 a mismatch response was observed in the time window of 175–275 ms even for intensity- 443 matched condition. According to these results, authors suggested that MMN is sensitive to the 444 “content” of the change (RT) but not purely to the amount of stimulus energy (intensity). 445 Meanwhile the context effect, i.e. the observation of prominent MMN only for conditions with 446 longer RT for the deviant than the standard, was left unexplained. 447 Controversial results were obtained concerning the MMN to RT deviant as neuromarker 448 for reading problems. The first study [53] considered MMN in response to deviants with short .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 55 449 RTs (10 vs 130 ms RT in standard stimuli) in typical reading children and children with reading 450 disabilities (RD) (8–10 years). The study included two conditions with different intervals 451 between stimuli in the presented pair. The authors chose a varying Within-Pair Interval (WPI) 452 design to investigate if children with reading problems exhibit deficits in rapid auditory 453 processing, expecting larger differences with short WPIs, and also to determine if they process 454 rise times differently at an early stage, regardless of the WPI length. This approach allowed 455 them to examine how both rapid presentation rates and rise time variations influence early 456 neural responses in children with and without reading difficulties. Each trial presented a pair of 457 tones under two timing conditions: a short gap condition with 10 ms between tones (within- 458 pair interval, WPI) and a longer gap condition with 255 ms between tones. The experimental 459 design included 80% standard pairs (where both tones had expected properties) and 20% 460 deviant pairs. In deviant pairs, the second tone differed either in RT (10% of trials, 10 ms 461 instead of 130 ms) or in pitch (10% of trials, 750 Hz instead of 500 Hz). The first tone remained 462 consistent across all pairs (100 ms duration, 80 ms rise time, 300 Hz frequency), while the 463 second tone in standard pairs had 150 ms duration, 130 ms RT, and 500 Hz frequency. All tone 464 pairs were separated by a consistent 610 ms interval (ISI), regardless of condition.While in the 465 longer interval condition (255 ms), MMN response (at latency 119 ms from the deviancy onset) 466 was larger than in the shorter interval (10 ms) in both groups, children with RD demonstrated 467 a larger MMN than typically developing (TD) children only in this longer interval condition. 468 This study also considered LDN. In conditions with a short (10 ms) interval after the previous 469 stimulus, LDN was not presented. In long within-pair intervals (255 ms) conditions, an LDN 470 response was observed at 375–645 ms. In this condition, the control group showed larger LDN 471 than children with RD. 472 A traditional non-paired oddball design was employed by Plakas et al. (2013) [47] in their study 473 of younger children (3 years old). A negative mismatch response at 346 ms for longer RT .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 56 474 deviants (90 vs 15 ms RT in standard stimuli) was observed in the control group but not in 475 people with dyslexia and typical reading, but with familial risk groups. The study by Hakvoort 476 and colleagues (Hakvoort et al., 2015) involves similar groups of children, but the age of the 477 participants was older (11 years). MMN and LDN, responses peaking around 260 ms and 420 478 ms respectively to RT deviants with longer RT (90, 180 or 270 vs 15 ms RT in standard stimuli) 479 were observed for all groups (typically developing children, children with dyslexia, and 480 children with familial risk of dyslexia) and did not differ between groups. The influence of 481 different RT durations of deviant stimuli was not considered in this study. The interstimulus 482 interval in this study was close to the long within-pair intervals condition in the Hämäläinen et 483 al. (2008) study (250 ms). These findings suggest that the presence and magnitude of the LDN 484 component may depend on the timing between stimuli and vary across populations with reading 485 difficulties. 486 A number of studies have used speech stimuli [4,54–56]. In these studies, the amplitude 487 RT (ART) changes are usually contrasted with the formant RT (FRT) changes. Syllables /ba/ 488 and /wa/ are commonly used stimuli in this type of study. Syllable /ba/ has a short ART (10 489 ms) and FRT (30 ms), /wa/ has more prolonged ART (70 ms) and FRT (110 ms). The third 490 synthetic token usually used in this approach combines a /ba/-like FRT (30 ms) with a /wa/- 491 like ART (70 ms). The Moberly et al. study [4] found that while neurotypical adults show MMN 492 response between 150–350 ms for changes in both ART and FRT deviants, the MMN is 493 significantly larger and more consistently observed across individuals for FRT deviants. In a 494 further study of this research group [54], similar experimental paradigms were used for adults 495 with cochlear implant sample. MMN response was observed for ART and FRT deviants and 496 did not differ between contrasts. Peter et al. [55] implicated FRT and ART oddball paradigm 497 to typically developing children and those with dyslexia (mean age=8.9 years). This study 498 inclined additional tokens with partial ART (40 ms) and FRT (70 ms) durations as ART and .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 57 499 FRT deviants. ART deviants did not elicit any mismatch response in either groups. Both partial 500 and full FRT deviants produce mismatch effects at time window 200–300 ms in the control 501 group. In the group of people with dyslexia, mismatch response was elicited only by full FRT 502 deviant. The developmental track of sensitivity was considered in a follow-up study by this 503 research group [56], including three age groups of children (6–8, 8–10, 10–12 years) and adults. 504 Сhildren younger than 10 years showed positive mismatch response between 200 and 400 ms 505 to both ART and FRT conditions. 10–12-year-old children and adults were sensitive only to 506 FRT deviants. 507 Two papers [57,58] examined the MMN response to the Cantonese syllables with 508 different RTs (/fu/ with RT 120 and 70 ms). In [57] deviant with 70 ms RT elicited more 509 positive mismatch responses (in time windows 150-200 ms after 70 ms RT and 150–238 ms 510 after 120 ms RT) than 120 ms RT deviant. A group of participants with good production and 511 good perception of Cantonese tones showed mismatch responses in both types of 512 counterbalanced contrasts, while a group with good perception but poor production of tones 513 demonstrated mismatch response only when stimulus with a shorter RT (70 ms) was used as a 514 deviant. In the following paper [58] additional group with poor speech production and poor 515 speech perception was also included in the analysis. In this group no significant mismatch 516 responses were observed for both contrasts (120 ms and 70 ms deviants). The amplitude of ERP 517 to stimulus with 70 ms RT at the time window 50–150 ms (P2) was more positive in good 518 production – good perception group than in good perception – poor production group and in 519 poor production – poor perception group. No significant difference between poor production – 520 good perception group and poor production – poor perception group was shown. MMN to 120 521 RT deviants did not show any significant difference between groups. 522 Choisdealbha and colleagues [48] provide a longitudinal study of RT perception 523 involving 7 month infants that was followed four months later. Sine tones and speech shaped .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 58 524 noise were used as stimuli and RT of standard stimuli was 15 ms and RT of deviants ranging 525 from 161.1 ms to 292.7 ms, in steps of 14.6 ms. It was shown that larger differences in standard 526 and deviant RT produce more positive mismatch response (at time window 300–460 ms). At 527 the same time amplitude of mismatch response becomes more negative in older infants. 528 Stimulus type did not influence the response. The proportion of infants exhibiting MMN or 529 MMR to deviants with different RT was broadly similar across all of the used oddball stimuli. 530 531 ASSR 532 The study by Van Hirtum and colleagues considered auditory steady-state response 533 (ASSR, an electrophysiological response expressed in neural tuning to the frequency of an 534 auditory stimulus) to RT changes in typical readers and adults with dyslexia [59]. As a stimuli, 535 they used white noise with amplitude modulation at 4, 10, 20, and 40 Hz, with two RT 536 conditions: 10 ms and 30 ms , without affecting the amplitude modulation rate. A sinusoidal 537 envelope modulation was carried out as a baseline condition. As a measure of ASSR strength, 538 the authors considered signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of ASSR response to an auditory stimulus. 539 ASSR responses were considered in the same EEG frequency ranges as the stimuli. 540 The study explored auditory processing differences between individuals with and 541 without dyslexia, focusing on their ability to discriminate RTs and perceive speech in noise. 542 Behavioral results revealed that individuals with dyslexia performed similarly to typical readers 543 in discriminating RT and intensity changes and in speech in noise perception. EEG showed 544 distinct neural responses to varying RTs based on the presence of dyslexia. Specifically, 545 participants with dyslexia showed reduced 10 Hz SNRs in 10 and 30 ms RT conditions, lower 546 20 Hz SNRs for 30 ms RT envelopes, and smaller 40 Hz SNRs for all RTs in the right 547 hemisphere compared to typical readers. No effects were found for 4 Hz SNR. Interestingly, a 548 30% larger relative increase in RT processing was observed for typical readers in the right .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 59 549 hemisphere compared to participants with dyslexia. Increased neural background activity at 40 550 Hz in the right hemisphere in participants with dyslexia also correlated with poor literacy and 551 phonological skills. In contrast, increased neural background activity of beta activity at 20 Hz 552 was significantly related to better literacy skills. The findings suggest that dyslexia is associated 553 with distinct alterations in neural processing of auditory RTs and increased neural background 554 activity, impacting speech perception and literacy skills. These results are considered within 555 the context of impaired phonological processing in participants with dyslexia, which is 556 manifested in a decrease in SNR by a short RT for stimuli with frequencies of 10 Hz and 20 557 Hz. The authors also attribute the decrease in SNR in the 40 Hz range to a decrease in 558 phonological processing and the formation of atypical phonological representations. The lack 559 of an effect for 4 Hz is discussed in the context of theta rhythm, which is associated with neural 560 tracking of syllable rhythm, which may not be impaired in participants with dyslexia, unlike 561 phonological processing. 562 563 Rhythmic activity 564 The study by Le Vere and colleagues considered a mean cortical desynchronization 565 during sleep in relation to different rise times perception [60]. As stimuli, a random noise 566 centered at 125 Hz with two rise time conditions (fast, approximately 3.24 ms, and slow, 7.5 567 s), were used in the experiment. This study found that both fast-rise and slow-rise auditory 568 stimuli could induce arousal during sleep. However, the effectiveness of the stimulus's rise time 569 depended on the sleep stage. During non-REM fast-wave sleep, both stimulus types were 570 equally effective. In contrast, during slow-wave sleep, a fast-rise stimulus produced 571 significantly more arousal than a slow-rise stimulus, despite the slow-rise stimulus having a 572 greater total energy and duration. This highlights the importance of rapid onset, rather than 573 overall energy, in capturing attention and causing arousal during deeper stages of sleep. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 60 574 Discussion 575 In the current review, we present the main studies focused on the electrophysiological 576 correlates of RT perception. As can be seen from the given above outcomes, the field under 577 consideration is quite broad and includes a large number of both older classical and modern 578 studies. The main outcomes of the reviewed studies generally are consistent with each other 579 and generalize to the overall framework: The prolongation of the RT leads to a decrease in the 580 amplitude of the main ERP components and an increase in their latencies. Nevertheless, the 581 observed effects may vary and depend on some aspects of the experimental paradigm, that is 582 considered below. 583 584 Stimulation characteristics influencing RT effect 585 The effect of RT might be influenced by the other stimulation parameters. Below we 586 discuss some of them, such as stimulus presentation rate and stimulus intensity effects on 587 neurophysiological encoding of RT, and suggest optimal stimulation parameters for 588 experimental design. In the following block we also discuss how the stimulus type affects RT 589 decoding as RT might be more crucial for speech sounds. We conclude this section by 590 presenting differential sensitivity to RT changes at different stages of auditory processing. 591 592 Inter-stimulus interval (ISI) 593 The ISI is an important parameter, especially for ERP studies, due to its effect on the 594 amplitude of the components [61,62]. Different inter-stimulus intervals significantly influence 595 the main ERP components, with component amplitudes generally increasing as the interval 596 lengthens. Moreover, this modulation by stimulus presentation rate varies across developmental 597 stages, reflecting ongoing maturation of neural processing [63]. The reviewed studies used .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 61 598 quite variable durations of ISI: from 22 to 457 ms for ABR studies (most often reported as 599 presentation rate); from 500 ms [29] to 14 s [42] for middle and late latency studies; from 10 600 ms [64] to 1 s [4,54] for MMN/MMR studies. Among ABR and middle and late latency studies 601 included in the review, none compared conditions with different ISI. One MMN study [64] 602 considered the effect of the duration of the interval between stimuli in a pair, which was equal 603 to 10 or 250 ms (design was described in more detail earlier in section 3.9). When the within- 604 pair interval was extremely short (10 ms) RT deviants elicited small MMN and did not elicit 605 any LDN, while in condition with longer interval after previous stimulus both of these 606 components were observed. Another study of this group [35] meanwhile demonstrated the RT 607 effect in a similar short interval: typically developing children showed larger N1 responses to 608 the short RT than to the long RT (10 vs 80 ms). However, in this study, stimuli with different 609 RTs had different frequencies, so the observed results may be related to pitch changes, even 610 authors do not discuss that it could have affected the final outcome. At short intervals after the 611 previous stimulus, masking of the rise time effects may be due to the overlap between the 612 response to the stimulus onset and the response to the previous stimulus offset, or due to 613 insufficient time period for recovery of specific neuronal populations after stimulus-specific 614 adaptation. 615 In summary of the included studies, we can conclude that an interval of 250 ms is 616 sufficient to detect effects associated with the oddball paradigm (MMN, LDN) [64,65], and an 617 interval of 500 ms is sufficient to observe effects on middle and late latency 618 components[26,29], as at shorter intervals the effect may be masked due to the stimulus-specific 619 adaptation. In ABR studies, the interstimulus interval varied from 22 to 457 ms and did not 620 affect the either amplitude or latency of the component. 621 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 62 622 Stimulus type 623 Studies included in the review used different types of stimuli that can be divided into 624 three main groups: noise bursts (white nose or speech shaped nose), sine tones and speech 625 tokens. Different types of stimuli were compared in the same sample only in two of the 626 reviewed studies [40,48]. In Prasher (1980) study RT effects on N1-P2 amplitude were 627 observed only for tone stimuli, but not for white noise. At the same time, prolongation in N1 628 latency with RT increasing was observed for both types of stimuli. The author explains this by 629 noting that white noise's spectral content remains unchanged with varying RT, whereas for tone 630 stimuli shorter RT (e.g., 2.5 ms) can introduce high-frequency transients due to the abrupt onset, 631 making the stimulus sound sharper or harsher. When longer RT were used and tone stimuli 632 were contrasted with speech-shaped noise in the sample of infants, no difference between 633 conditions were observed [48]. 634 A general consideration of the other studies shows that the neurophysiological effects 635 of RT have been successfully detected both in the case of tones and speech stimuli. Some 636 particular discrepancies like in Easwar’s and colleagues’ works[36,39], where significant 637 decrease in N1-P2 amplitude with RT prolongation was observed for syllables but not for 1000 638 Hz tone burst, are rather due to other stimulation parameters (too tiny difference in RT 639 conditions for the tones). The acceptability of all possible stimulus types for the investigation 640 of RT sensitivity is also supported by a recent longitudinal behavioral study [66]. It was shown 641 that RT sensitivity thresholds measured with different stimulus types are significantly 642 correlated with each other. 643 The findings from various studies investigating neural responses to speech sound 644 characteristics suggest that formant RT processing often yields particularly distinct or robust 645 effects in neurotypical populations when compared to other groups. For instance, research of 646 Moberly et al., 2014 has indicated that while MMN responses can be elicited by both amplitude .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 63 647 and formant RT (ART and FRT) deviants, the brain's response to formant RT changes is 648 sometimes significantly stronger and more consistently observed across individuals. This 649 pattern of heightened FRT sensitivity in neurotypical group appears to differ from observations 650 in adults with cochlear implants [54], where such a specific enhancement for FRT processing 651 in MMN responses was not evident. Studies involving children also highlight differences based 652 on neurotypical development: typically developing children have been shown to exhibit 653 mismatch responses to a broader range of FRT deviants (including both partial and full 654 changes) compared to children with dyslexia, who may only demonstrate responses to more 655 substantial FRT alterations, implying a more finely tuned FRT processing mechanism in their 656 neurotypical peers [55]. Furthermore, developmental research points to an increasing 657 specialization for FRT in neurotypical individuals. While younger children (e.i., those under 10 658 years old) might respond to changes in both ART and FRTs, older neurotypical children (e.i., 659 10–12 years old) and adults tend to show sensitivity primarily to FRT deviants, suggesting a 660 maturation of this specific auditory processing capability [56]. Although not all investigations 661 into RT processing have found group-based differences for every neural component studied, 662 the collective evidence from MMN/MMR studies using specific FRT manipulations, supports 663 the notion that FRT serves as a salient acoustic cue for which neurotypical auditory systems 664 demonstrate more specialized processing. 665 666 Intensity of stimulation 667 The RT changes accompany the total changes of the stimulus energy, such as intensity 668 and also significantly influences perceived loudness of a sound. This effect is associated with 669 the reduction of the plateau duration (period at which the stimulus has maximal intensity) if RT 670 is increased. Therefore, stimuli with the same duration but different RTs will have different 671 cumulative intensity and can be perceived as stimuli of different loudness. In order to .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 64 672 distinguish RT and intensity effects, Thomson and colleagues (2008) used two types of deviant 673 stimuli: deviant with a shorter RT (15 ms) than in standard stimulus (50 ms) and deviant with 674 the same short RT but matched with the standard stimulus in intensity. When intensity of RT 675 deviant was matched, no significant mismatch response was found, while traditionally used RT 676 deviant, that is unmatched in intensity, produced some MMN (but it was not significant). 677 However, in the opposite condition, when the standard and deviant stimuli were switched, 678 matched in intensity deviant with longer than standard RT (50 ms) elicited MMN. Thus, MMN 679 is sensitive to the RT per se, but dependent on the context. In ERP study by Kodera and 680 colleagues (1979), stimuli with different RT were matched in intensities. Despite this, the 681 authors obtained significant RT effects for latency and amplitude of ABR and main middle and 682 late latency components (except N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude). The absence of an effect for 683 the N1-P2 component is quite unusual, as most studies have associated this component with 684 the RT effects. This effect may be related to the fact that when intensity is equated, the main 685 effects of RT are related to the signal detection time. When stimuli are equalized in intensity, 686 the point at which stimuli with different rise times begin to be perceived as equivalent occurs 687 earlier. In this case, such difference in stimulus detection time could be less critical for effects 688 on later components, especially when the difference between the RT conditions is small (15 ms 689 in Kodera work). In relation to ABR, due to the even smaller difference in the durations of the 690 RTs studied, this problem is relevant only in the sense that some RT+intensity combinations 691 are below the response elicitation threshold and, accordingly, cannot be compared. 692 RT discrimination thresholds are influenced by the overall stimulus intensity [67]. 693 While many studies in the literature, particularly those focusing on language development or 694 clinical applications, control for intensity by presenting sounds at comfortable listening levels, 695 the general psychophysical principles suggest an intensity dependence. It is generally 696 understood that at very low sound levels, the auditory system has fewer activation, leading to .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 65 697 poorer discrimination. As intensity increases, more auditory nerve fibers are recruited, 698 providing a more robust and detailed representation of the sound's temporal envelope, which 699 can lead to improved RT discrimination. This complex interaction between intensity and 700 temporal processing is crucial for understanding how we perceive sounds in various real-world 701 environments. So, it is important to consider whether intensity is an essential characteristic for 702 detecting RT effects on the ERP. Some classical auditory perception studies have investigated 703 the effects of RT at different intensities. Onishi and Davis (1968) have found that the 704 prolongations in N1 latency and decrease in N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude with RT increase 705 were observed in all intensity levels (45, 65, and 85 dB), notable that latency increase was 706 particularly marked at the lowest (45 dB) intensity level. However, in the second part of their 707 study, an intensity condition of 15 was used, at this condition response was above noise level 708 for only one participant for the rise time of 3 ms, and only for two participants for rise time of 709 30 ms. Nevertheless, the authors report that the amplitude of N1P2 was systematically lower at 710 3 ms RT than at 30 ms RT, at all intensity levels. No interaction between RT and intensity 711 effects was found in the Skinner and Jones study [30]. However, it should be noted that no 712 statistical analyses were performed in the two given studies. In Prasher study (1980) the 713 observed RT effects did not differ between intensity conditions (80 and 40 dB SPL). Overall, 714 no clear association between the observed RT effects and intensity was reported in the included 715 in the review studies. Thus, modulation of amplitude and latency by the RT duration can be 716 detected even at low intensities (15–45 dB SPL), especially if the difference between the RT 717 durations is large enough [27,30,37,42]. 718 Thus, the findings of this systematic review suggest that variations in intensity across 719 different RT conditions did not influence the neurophysiological discrimination, but could 720 potentially confound the interpretation of results. However, there is no effective way to separate .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 66 721 the effect of RT and cumulative intensity as inevitable matching of cumulative intensity of 722 stimuli with different RT lead to their difference in maximal intensity. 723 724 Differential sensitivity to the rise time duration changes across stages of 725 auditory processing 726 The reviewed studies cover a very wide difference in RT from microseconds to 727 hundreds of milliseconds, all of them indexing some aspects of the natural environment. Fast 728 abrupt changes activate the alerting system and also important for consonant discrimination, 729 RT between 15 to 100 ms are crucial for vowel perception, while RT changes in slowed rate 730 represent the background auditory scene analysis, emotional component of speech and prosody 731 [68–70]. 732 A summary of differences in RT durations for different ERPs can be seen on Figure 3. 733 In most ABR-studies RT differences varied from tens of microseconds (the smallest value 90 734 µs or 0.09 ms in Salt & Thornton study) to 7 ms, while in some studies this difference reached 735 15 ms. Noteworthy, for each contrast the significant changes in ABR latencies were found. 736 Middle latency components were studied only in two studies with the RT range from 0.49 ms 737 to 24.99 ms and the components modulation were demonstrated for all used contrasts. The 738 range of RT differences, which showed significant results for late latency (components was 739 from 4.99 ms to 500 ms, in most cases considered as N1P2 peak-to-peak amplitude). The 740 optimal RT ranges also differed within late latency components being smaller for N1, and larger 741 for P2 (>30 ms). RT differences less than 4.99 ms (namely 2.49 ms in Prasher study, 1980) and 742 more than 500 ms (in Elfner study, 1976) showed no significant changes in amplitude or 743 latency. 744 In most recent studies on the RT perception, a RT of 15 ms is usually used as the 745 minimum value [29,33,47,48,65]. This concerns those evoked potentials that arise in the .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 67 746 cerebral cortex as opposed to those that are associated with activity, for example, in the 747 brainstem, namely, the ABRs, which are produced on the earlier stages of auditory processing 748 and are not accessible for behavioral discrimination. In auditory discrimination tasks, 15 ms is 749 widely utilized as a standard reference point which is compared to a longer RT. This 750 standardization allows for consistent experimental protocols and comparable results across 751 studies. According to research on auditory processing and phonological development, this 752 parameter provides an optimal baseline for discrimination tasks. In RT discrimination tasks, 753 researchers typically present target sounds gradually logarithmically ranging from 15 ms (the 754 standard) to longer durations. This methodological approach has been validated through 755 multiple studies, which explore relationships between RT sensitivity and reading development 756 [29,48,71]. Research has also demonstrated that 15 ms RT effectively balances the need to 757 avoid spectral splatter while maintaining temporal precision in auditory stimuli. This technical 758 consideration is crucial for creating clean experimental stimuli without introducing 759 confounding variables [72]. The 15 ms RT parameter aligns with critical amplitude RTs in the 760 speech envelope that significantly impact speech intelligibility. This connection to natural 761 speech processing makes it particularly relevant for studying both typical and atypical language 762 development, as demonstrated in research on auditory temporal processing and phonological 763 awareness [73]. 764 765 Fig. 3 Differences in rise time durations (in ms) in studies observed. 766 767 Thus, the optimal time window for detecting RT effects varies depending on the level 768 of processing. For brainstem structures, the response of which is detected by ABRs, it is very 769 short. For subcortical structures it is longer, and for cortical structures (late potentials) it is the 770 longest and in most works is not less than 15 ms. While ABRs are remarkably sensitive to RT .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 68 771 differences as tens of microseconds, reflecting their role in processing the immediate onset of 772 sound, subcortical structures demonstrate a longer optimal window. This extended window is 773 evidenced by studies on middle latency components, which showed modulations across a range 774 of RT differences from 0.49 ms to 24.99 ms. This suggests that subcortical processing integrates 775 auditory information over a slightly more prolonged period than the brainstem, allowing for the 776 detection of RT effects that unfold over hundreds of microseconds to several milliseconds. 777 Further extending this temporal integration, cortical structures, responsible for late potentials, 778 exhibit the longest optimal window for RT effects. In the majority of research, this window is 779 not less than 15 ms. This is because late cortical components are involved in higher-level 780 processing, where the brain is analyzing more complex features of the sound stimulus. 781 Consequently, to observe significant effects, a more substantial difference in the RT between 782 conditions – typically exceeding 15 ms – is required for the distinctions to be sufficiently 783 pronounced to modulate cortical responses. This extended temporal requirement reflects the 784 cortical areas' role in integrating information over longer durations for perceptual 785 discrimination, language processing, and cognitive functions, where the precise, rapid onset 786 information critical for brainstem responses has already been processed and is being interpreted 787 within a broader temporal context. 788 789 Developmental changes in electrophysiological markers of rise time 790 perception 791 The main ERP components undergo significant developmental changes across the 792 lifespan, reflecting the maturation of the auditory processing system. Already the earliest, 793 subcortical auditory responses like ABR demonstrate significant age-related changes, with 794 research showing progressive increases in peak latencies of waves I, III, and V through 795 ontogenesis [74]. A systematic search, however, found only one RT study in children that .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 69 796 examined ABR: the results for infants in this study were no different from those for adults [14]. 797 No RT studies for children concerning middle latency potentials were found. 798 Late latency components like N1 demonstrate prolonged development. In early 799 childhood, auditory evoked potentials are dominated by the P1 and N2 components, while the 800 N1 and P2 components response becomes more prominent with maturation at about 10-12 years 801 of age. Also latency of such components decreased with age. The MMN component, which 802 reflects automatic auditory change detection, develops from positive to negative through 803 childhood. MMN has been directly linked to auditory discrimination abilities that evolve 804 throughout the lifespan [75]. These developmental changes in ERPs considered in relation to 805 RT perception have important implications for understanding both typical auditory 806 development and disorders characterized by impaired rise time processing. 807 Studies of neurotypical adults demonstrated that the main effects of RT are observed on 808 N1 and P2 components. However, in young children these components are not yet fully 809 developed [76], which suggests that the typical pattern of ERP components modulation by the 810 rise time duration may change with age. Only three studies included in the review examined 811 the RT effects of main ERP components in children [29,35,41]. Two of them considered RT 812 effects on N1–P2 peak-to-peak amplitude in children samples [35,41]. In the study by Carpenter 813 & Shanin (2013) [41] decreasing N1-P2 amplitude was observed only after 6 years, while 4–5 814 years old children did not demonstrate any RT effects, which may be related to the poor 815 development of this component in this age group. In Hämäläinen (2007) [35] study, typically 816 reading children (aged 8.8–10.5 years) demonstrate N1 decrease with RT prolongation. The 817 third of the included studies concerning RT in children [29] showed that in children the RT 818 related effects can be transferred to adjacent components (P1 and N2), which probably absorb 819 some functions from not fully developed N1 and P2 components. Thus, in children (aged 7–11 820 years), P1 demonstrates a latency delay with RT increasing. It was also shown that at these ages .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 70 821 RT effects are observed for the N2 component, which demonstrates a decrease in amplitude 822 and prolongation of latency with RT increasing. 823 Age-specific phenomenon was also observed for studies carried out in the oddball 824 paradigm. Generally, the latency of the difference-wave mismatched response decreases with 825 age. Decreasing in MMN latency in older children is a common fact associated with age-related 826 reduction in latency of ERP components [77]. This is also typical for the mismatch response 827 evoked by a deviant stimulus with a different RT, which can be seen in studies, included in this 828 review. Six of the oddball studies included in this review also examined children. In particular, 829 in studies including adult participants, MMN to RT changes was observed in a time window 830 from 150 to 350 ms [4,52,54,57,58]. In children, this time window can be shifted and is 831 considered as a mismatch response [47,56,56,65]. At 11 years the peak of mismatch response 832 appears at 256 ms [65], while at age of 3 years – at 346 ms [47]. In infants, the response time 833 window is shifted even more: from 300 ms to 460 ms [48]. Also, age could affect MMN 834 amplitude, which tends to be larger in children than in adults [77,78]. From the works presented 835 in the review we can also observe the change of configuration of the mismatch response on 836 difference wave, which becomes more negative in older participants. The beginnings of these 837 changes can already be observed in infants, but the response remains positive (Choisdealbha et 838 al., 2022). At around 10 years, the positive MMR is replaced by a negative response, known as 839 MMN [56]. 840 Behavioral studies have established that discriminatory sensitivity to acoustic RT 841 changes throughout ontogenesis [71]. In particular, six-year-old children have significantly 842 lower RT thresholds (83.6 ms for sine tones, 150.26 ms for noise, 61.06 ms for speech token) 843 than four-year-olds (205.37 ms for sine tones, 257.69 ms for noise, 105.91 ms for speech token). 844 However, the neurophysiological underpinnings of this developmental trajectory remain 845 insufficiently characterized, largely due to a scarcity of research focused specifically on .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 71 846 pediatric populations. The existing literature provides glimpses into these developmental shifts. 847 For example, Peter et al. (2018) studied speech tokens and demonstrated a clear age-dependent 848 pattern where children younger than 10 showed a positive mismatch response to both ART and 849 FRT deviants, whereas children aged 10-12 and adults exhibited sensitivity primarily to FRT 850 changes. This suggests a maturational process that refines neural specialization for speech 851 sounds. Consequently, while it is clear that neural sensitivity to RT evolves with age, a 852 comprehensive map of how specific neurophysiological markers for different types of RT 853 develop in children is still needed. 854 Thus, it is important to take into account that the main target components of ERPs 855 showing RT effects quite significantly varies with age. Thus, the ERP configuration in each 856 age group has to be considered in order to more accurately interpret the RT effects and to be 857 able to compare the results of different studies. 858 859 Rise time perception and speech disorders 860 Eight of included studies were focused on the neurophysiological specifics of RT 861 processing in speech disorders (particularly dyslexia). Four of them consider MMN or MMR 862 measured in oddball paradigm as possible neuromarker of RT processing in speech impediment 863 groups [47,55,64,65], three works consider late latency ERP components (such as P1, N1, P2 864 and N2 [29,34,35] and one work was focused on ASSR [59]. The observed results were very 865 controversial. Several studies indicated that some patterns of ERP modulation by RT that were 866 observed in the typically-developing group were not present in groups with reading disabilities 867 [35,47,55]. In contrast, other studies have shown that RT-related changes that were not 868 characteristic of the typically-developing group are observed in reading disorders [29,34,64]. 869 Alternatively, there may be no differences between groups at all [65]. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 72 870 Research into the RT processing of individuals with dyslexia, particularly concerning 871 the MMN and other ERP components in response to changes in stimulus RT, has yielded varied 872 results. One key finding from Hämäläinen and colleagues (2008) indicated a larger MMN to 873 RT changes in children with reading difficulties when preceding stimuli were sufficiently 874 separated. However, this observation was tempered by the suggestion that an elevated N1 875 component in dyslexia [79] might contribute to this effect through overlap. In subsequent work, 876 Hämäläinen et al. (2011) noted that individuals with dyslexia exhibited less negative amplitudes 877 of the T-complex with prolonged RTs, which they attributed to an enlarged Tb component, 878 potentially enabling better detection of RT effects despite other processing differences. Other 879 studies also explored this area, with Stefanics (2011) reporting the increased P1 latency and 880 bigger fronto-temporal N1c amplitude (for 90 ms RT in dyslexia group vs 15 ms RT in TD 881 group) for RT changes in children with dyslexia as compared to neurotypical controls. 882 Despite these findings, the Peter (2016) study introduced a nuanced perspective, 883 suggesting that the perception of formant RT differences might be a more informative marker 884 for dyslexia than amplitude RT differences. This raises questions about the overall utility of the 885 MMN response to amplitude RT deviants as a definitive indicator of dyslexia. Further insights 886 come from Plakas (2013), whose study on three-year-old children revealed a critical distinction: 887 MMR in response to a 90 ms RT tone within a stream of 15 ms RT tones was exclusively 888 observed in typically-developing children without a familial risk of dyslexia. Children with a 889 familial risk, regardless of a dyslexia diagnosis, did not exhibit this response. This result points 890 towards a genetic predisposition to dyslexia, rather than merely reflecting the diagnosis itself, 891 and suggests that these early childhood MMR differences might signify a general susceptibility 892 to phonological challenges that could be mitigated by the development of other language skills 893 in older age. Collectively, these studies underscore the complex and multifaceted nature of .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 73 894 auditory processing deficits in dyslexia, highlighting the need for continued research to refine 895 our understanding and identify robust diagnostic markers. 896 897 Directions for further research 898 As previously mentioned, there are certain areas in RT research where the findings are 899 largely consistent, such as decrease in amplitude and increase in latency for the main 900 components of ABRs and ERPs. Conversely, the existing results do not permit us to draw clear 901 conclusions about the mechanisms underlying RT effects, particularly in studies related to 902 MMN, LDN, and research involving individuals with dyslexia. It is worth noting that many of 903 the studies yielding consistent results were conducted quite some time ago, which suggests that 904 new methodological approaches and more advanced technology could potentially reinterpret 905 these findings. This is particularly relevant for ABR-studies. Due to methodological limitations, 906 including outdated technology, small sample sizes, and manual measurements, existing ABR 907 rise time studies, the most recent of which dates back to 1996 with a significant portion 908 conducted in the 1970s-1980s, may be biased, highlighting the need for replication with modern 909 equipment, larger samples, and design-appropriate statistics. Another clear gap in knowledge 910 that is evident at Fig.2, is the absence of research on the main ERP components after 2014, with 911 the field dominated by an oddball paradigm. While oddball paradigm allows assessing the 912 neurophysiological response to the sound differences, it has several drawbacks, such as 913 increased duration of stimulation, low signal to noise ratio, ambiguity of results interpretation 914 and so on [49,80]. Thus, the recent neurophysiological studies on RT can be largely 915 supplemented by the analysis of main ERP components in response to repetitive stimulation. 916 In this review, we aimed to observe all RT electrophysiological human studies. 917 However, studies in the children population, especially for basic ERP components, such as P1, 918 N1, P2 and N2 are lacking, while investigation of the developmental trajectory for the rise time .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 74 919 neurophysiological sensitivity is crucial for linking it with speech perception ability. A similar 920 gap is seen for the studies in the clinical group, only participants with speech and reading 921 difficulties were found to be included in the review. At the same time, impaired ability to 922 process phonological features of auditory stimuli is observed not only in patients with other 923 speech and language disorders, but also in patients with developmental disorders, primarily 924 with ASD [81]. In particular, it was reported about an auditory temporal-envelope resolution 925 deficit in this population [82], which might cause the delay of phonological categories 926 development in children with ASD [83]. Temporal resolution of the auditory cortex is often 927 assessed using amplitude modulated stimuli [84], and such a characteristic as RT can be also 928 differently processed in people with ASD. Thus, investigation of RT neurophysiological 929 discrimination in people with ASD seems like a logical continuation of such research in clinical 930 groups. 931 932 Limitations 933 Several limitations of this review should be acknowledged. First, our search strategy 934 was restricted to publications in English and to major electronic databases, which may have 935 introduced language and publication biases, potentially omitting relevant studies published 936 elsewhere. 937 Second, there was substantial methodological and conceptual heterogeneity across 938 studies in some sections. This heterogeneity precluded a quantitative meta-analysis and 939 necessitated a narrative synthesis, which is more susceptible to subjective interpretation. To 940 enhance objectivity, we used a pre-defined framework for synthesis and independent 941 assessment by two reviewers. 942 Third, the methodological quality of the primary studies was sometimes suboptimal, 943 with frequent unclear or high risk of bias, as assessed by the OHAT tool. Consequently, the .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 75 944 overall confidence in the body of evidence for outcomes in some sections, as per our OHAT- 945 based assessment, was not high enough. This fundamentally qualifies the strength of our 946 conclusions, which should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. 947 Finally, despite our comprehensive search, the possibility of unpublished null results 948 (publication bias) remains a concern that could skew the presented narrative towards an 949 overestimation of reported effects. 950 951 Author contributions 952 V.M.: Conceptualization, Full-text screening, Analysis, Writing – original draft, 953 Writing – review and editing, Visualization. D.K.: Conceptualization, Abstract screening, Full- 954 text screening, Analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. A.R.: Abstract 955 screening, Full-text screening, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. O.S.: 956 Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing, Supervision 957 958 Funding sources 959 Supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, 960 (Agreement 075-10-2025-017 from 27.02.2025) 961 962 Declaration of competing interest 963 The authors, who are all academic researchers, declare that they have no affiliations 964 with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in 965 the subject matter or materials discussed in this systematic review. 966 967 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 76 968 References 969 1. Goswami U. Phonology, reading development, and dyslexia: A cross-linguistic 970 perspective. Ann of Dyslexia. 2002;52: 139–163. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0010-0 971 2. Goswami U. A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends in 972 Cognitive Sciences. 2011;15: 3–10. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.001 973 3. Kalashnikova M, Goswami U, Burnham D. Sensitivity to amplitude envelope rise time 974 in infancy and vocabulary development at 3 years: A significant relationship. 975 Developmental Science. 2019;22: e12836. doi:10.1111/desc.12836 976 4. Moberly AC, Bhat J, Welling DB, Shahin AJ. Neurophysiology of spectrotemporal cue 977 organization of spoken language in auditory memory. Brain Lang. 2014;130: 42–49. 978 doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.01.007 979 5. Kalashnikova M, Goswami U, Burnham D. Sensitivity to amplitude envelope rise time 980 in infancy and vocabulary development at 3 years: A significant relationship. 981 Developmental Science. 2019;22: e12836. doi:10.1111/desc.12836 982 6. Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic Review and 983 Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments. 984 Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122: 711–718. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307972 985 7. Fausti SA, Gray PS, Frey RH, Mitchell CR. Rise time and center-frequency effects on 986 auditory brainstem responses to high-frequency tone bursts. J Am Acad Audiol. 1991;2: 987 24–31. 988 8. Keith RW, Garza-Holquin Y, Smolak L, Pensak ML. Acoustic reflex dynamics and 989 auditory brain stem responses in multiple sclerosis. Am J Otol. 1987;8: 406–413. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 77 990 9. Lamb LE, Graham JT. Influence of signal variables on evoked response to sound. 991 Journal of Speech & Hearing Research. 1967;10: 257–267. doi:10.1044/jshr.1002.257 992 10. Loveless NE, Brunia CH. Effects of rise-time on late components of the auditory evoked 993 potential. Journal of Psychophysiology. 1990;4: 369–380. 994 11. Pugh JE. Evoked potential latency vs stimulus rise-time. Journal of Auditory Research. 995 1964;4: 145–150. 996 12. Radionova EA. Temporal and temporal-frequency characteristics of the auditory system. 997 Sensory Systems. 1994;7: 154–161. 998 13. Rhum HB, Jansen JW. Rate of stimulus change and the evoked response: I Signal rise- 999 time. Journal of Auditory Research. 1969;9: 211–216. 1000 14. Folsom RC, Aurich CD. Auditory brainstem responses from human adults and infants: 1001 Influence of stimulus onset. Audiology. 1987;26: 117–122. 1002 doi:10.3109/00206098709078413 1003 15. Barth CD, Burkard R. Effects of noise burst rise time and level on the human brainstem 1004 auditory evoked response. Audiology. 1993;32: 225–233. 1005 doi:10.3109/00206099309072938 1006 16. Gerull IngG, Mrowinski D, Janssen T, Anft D. Auditory brainstem responses to single- 1007 slope stimuli: The influence of steepness and polarity. Scandinavian Audiology. 1008 1987;16: 227–235. doi:10.3109/01050398709074945 1009 17. Kodera K, Hink RF, Yamada O, Suzuki JI. Effects of rise time on simultaneously 1010 recorded auditory-evoked potentials from the early, middle and late ranges. Audiology. 1011 1979;18: 395–402. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 78 1012 18. Stapells DR, Picton TW. Technical aspects of brainstem evoked potential audiometry 1013 using tones. Ear Hear. 1981;2: 20–29. doi:10.1097/00003446-198101000-00006 1014 19. Cobb J, Skinner P, Burns J. Effects of signal rise time and frequency on brain-stem 1015 auditory evoked-response. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research. 1978;21: 408–416. 1016 doi:10.1044/jshr.2102.408 1017 20. Hecox K, Deegan D. Rise-fall time effects on the brainstem auditory evoked response: 1018 mechanisms. J Acoust Soc Am. 1983;73: 2109–2116. doi:10.1121/1.389578 1019 21. Suzuki T, Horiuchi K. Rise time of pure-tone stimuli in brain stem response audiometry. 1020 Audiology. 1981;20: 101–112. doi:10.3109/00206098109072688 1021 22. VanCampen L, Hall J, Grantham D. Human offset auditory brainstem response: Effects 1022 of stimulus acoustic ringing and rise-fall time. Hearing research. 1997;103: 35–46. 1023 doi:10.1016/S0378-5955(96)00161-X 1024 23. Kumar K, Bhat JS, D’Costa PE, Srivastava M, Kalaiah MK. Effect of Stimulus Polarity 1025 on Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response. Audiology Research. 2014;3: e8. 1026 doi:10.4081/audiores.2013.e8 1027 24. Salt AN, Thornton AR. THE The effects of stimulus rise-time and polarity on the 1028 auditory brain-stem responses. Scandinavian Audiology. 1984;13: 119–127. 1029 doi:10.3109/01050398409043050 1030 25. Neves IF, Gonçalves IC, Leite RA, Leite Magliaro FC, Matas CG. Middle Latency 1031 Response Study of Auditory Evoked Potentials’ Amplitudes and Lantencies 1032 Audiologically Normal Individuals. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2007;73: 1033 69–74. doi:10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31125-3 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 79 1034 26. Kodera K, Hink RF, Yamada O, Suzuki JI. Effects of rise time on simultaneously 1035 recorded auditory-evoked potentials from the early, middle and late ranges. Audiology. 1036 1979;18: 395–402. doi:10.3109/00206097909070065 1037 27. Skinner PH, Antinoro F. The effects of signal rise time and duration on the early 1038 components of the auditory evoked cortical response. J Speech Hear Res. 1971;14: 552– 1039 558. doi:10.1044/jshr.1403.552 1040 28. Keintzel T, Raffelsberger T, Niederwanger L, Gundacker G, Rasse T. Systematic 1041 Literature Review and Early Benefit of Cochlear Implantation in Two Pediatric 1042 Auditory Neuropathy Cases. JPM. 2023;13: 848. doi:10.3390/jpm13050848 1043 29. Stefanics G, Fosker T, Huss M, Mead N, Szucs D, Goswami U. Auditory sensory 1044 deficits in developmental dyslexia: a longitudinal ERP study. Neuroimage. 2011;57: 1045 723–732. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.005 1046 30. Skinner PH, Jones HC. Effects of signal duration and rise time on the auditory evoked 1047 potential. J Speech Hear Res. 1968;11: 301–306. doi:10.1044/jshr.1102.301 1048 31. Dabbous A, El-Shennawy A, Hamdy M, Nabieh S. Comparison of n1p2 cortical 1049 auditory evoked potential and narrow-band chirp auditory steady state potential in 1050 hearing threshold detection in adults. J Hear Sci. 2020;10: 48–68. 1051 doi:10.17430/JHS.2020.10.4.6 1052 32. Putnam LE, Roth WT. Effects of stimulus repetition, duration, and rise time on startle 1053 blink and automatically elicited P300. Psychophysiology. 1990;27: 275–297. 1054 doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb00383.x 1055 33. Thomson JM, Goswami U, Baldeweg T. The ERP signature of sound rise time changes. .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 80 1056 Brain Res. 2009;1254: 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.087 1057 34. Hämäläinen JA, Fosker T, Szücs D, Goswami U. N1, P2 and T-complex of the auditory 1058 brain event-related potentials to tones with varying rise times in adults with and without 1059 dyslexia. Int J Psychophysiol. 2011;81: 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.04.005 1060 35. Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PHT, Guttorm TK, Lyytinen H. N1 and P2 components of 1061 auditory event-related potentials in children with and without reading disabilities. Clin 1062 Neurophysiol. 2007;118: 2263–2275. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.07.007 1063 36. Easwar V, Glista D, Purcell D, Scollie S. The effect of stimulus choice on cortical 1064 auditory evoked potentials (CAEP): Consideration of speech segment positioning within 1065 naturally produced speech. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY. 1066 2012;51: 926–931. doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.711913 1067 37. Onishi S, Davis H. Effects of duration and rise time of tone bursts on evoked V 1068 potentials. J Acoust Soc Am. 1968;44: 582–591. doi:10.1121/1.1911124 1069 38. Zito F. Effects of long rise time stimuli on the latencies of the slow V potentials. Scand 1070 Audiol. 1978;7: 39–42. doi:10.3109/01050397809043130 1071 39. Easwar V, Glista D, Purcell DW, Scollie SD. Hearing aid processing changes tone burst 1072 onset: effect on cortical auditory evoked potentials in individuals with normal 1073 audiometric thresholds. Am J Audiol. 2012;21: 82–90. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11- 1074 0039) 1075 40. Prasher DK. The influence of stimulus spectral content on rise time effects in cortical- 1076 evoked responses. Audiology. 1980;19: 355–362. doi:10.3109/00206098009072676 1077 41. Carpenter AL, Shahin AJ. Development of the N1-P2 auditory evoked response to .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 81 1078 amplitude rise time and rate of formant transition of speech sounds. Neurosci Lett. 1079 2013;544: 56–61. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.03.041 1080 42. Elfner LF, Gustafson DJ, Williams KN. Signal onset and task variables in auditory 1081 evoked potentials. Biol Psychol. 1976;4: 197–206. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(76)90004-1 1082 43. Näätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to 1083 sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology. 1987;24: 1084 375–425. 1085 44. Folstein JR, Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 1086 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology. 2008;45: 152–170. 1087 doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x 1088 45. Polich J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical 1089 Neurophysiology. 2007;118: 2128–2148. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 1090 46. Lyytinen H, Blomberg A-P, Näätänen R. Event-related potentials and autonomic 1091 responses to a change in unattended auditory stimuli. Psychophysiology. 1992;29: 523– 1092 534. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1992.tb02025.x 1093 47. Plakas A, van Zuijen T, van Leeuwen T, Thomson JM, van der Leij A. Impaired non- 1094 speech auditory processing at a pre-reading age is a risk-factor for dyslexia but not a 1095 predictor: An ERP study. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous 1096 System and Behavior. 2013;49: 1034–1045. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.02.013 1097 48. Choisdealbha A, Attaheri A, Rocha S, Brusini P, Flanagan S, Mead N, et al. Neural 1098 detection of changes in amplitude rise time in infancy. Developmental Cognitive 1099 Neuroscience. 2022;54. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101075 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 82 1100 49. O’Reilly JA, O’Reilly A. A Critical Review of the Deviance Detection Theory of 1101 Mismatch Negativity. NeuroSci. 2021;2: 151–165. doi:10.3390/neurosci2020011 1102 50. Cheour M, Korpilahti P, Martynova O, Lang A-H. Mismatch Negativity and Late 1103 Discriminative Negativity in Investigating Speech Perception and Learning in Children 1104 and Infants. Audiol Neurotol. 2001;6: 2–11. doi:10.1159/000046804 1105 51. Korpilahti P, Lang HA. Auditory ERP components and mismatch negativity in 1106 dysphasic children. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1994;91: 1107 256–264. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(94)90189-9 1108 52. Lyytinen H, Blomberg AP, Näätänen R. Event-related potentials and autonomic 1109 responses to a change in unattended auditory stimuli. Psychophysiology. 1992;29: 523– 1110 534. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1992.tb02025.x 1111 53. Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PHT, Guttorm TK, Lyytinen H. Event-related potentials to 1112 pitch and rise time change in children with reading disabilities and typically reading 1113 children. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2008;119: 100–115. 1114 doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.064 1115 54. Moberly AC, Bhat J, Shahin AJ. Acoustic Cue Weighting by Adults with Cochlear 1116 Implants: A Mismatch Negativity Study. Ear Hear. 2016;37: 465–472. 1117 doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000257 1118 55. Peter V, Kalashnikova M, Burnhammarcs D. Neural processing of amplitude and 1119 formant rise time in dyslexia. DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE. 1120 2016;19: 152–163. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2016.03.006 1121 56. Peter V, Kalashnikova M, Burnham D. Weighting of Amplitude and Formant Rise Time .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 83 1122 Cues by School-Aged Children: A Mismatch Negativity Study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1123 2018;61: 1322–1333. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0334 1124 57. Ou J, Law S-P. Individual differences in processing pitch contour and rise time in adults: 1125 A behavioral and electrophysiological study of Cantonese tone merging. J Acoust Soc 1126 Am. 2016;139: 3226. doi:10.1121/1.4954252 1127 58. Ou J, Law S-P. Cognitive basis of individual differences in speech perception, 1128 production and representations: The role of domain general attentional switching. Atten 1129 Percept Psychophys. 2017;79: 945–963. doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1283-z 1130 59. Van Hirtum T, Ghesquière P, Wouters J. Atypical neural processing of rise time by 1131 adults with dyslexia. Cortex. 2019;113: 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.12.006 1132 60. Le Vere TE. Arousal from sleep: The effects of the rise-time of auditory stimuli. 1133 Physiological Psychology. 1976;4: 213–218. doi:10.3758/BF03326582 1134 61. Pereira DR, Cardoso S, Ferreira-Santos F, Fernandes C, Cunha-Reis C, Paiva TO, et al. 1135 Effects of inter-stimulus interval (ISI) duration on the N1 and P2 components of the 1136 auditory event-related potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2014;94: 1137 311–318. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.09.012 1138 62. Sussman E, Steinschneider M, Gumenyuk V, Grushko J, Lawson K. The maturation of 1139 human evoked brain potentials to sounds presented at different stimulus rates. Hearing 1140 Research. 2008;236: 61–79. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2007.12.001 1141 63. Kostanian DG, Rebreikina AB, Sysoeva OV. Developmental Changes in Presentation 1142 Rate Effect on Auditory Event-Related Potential through Childhood to Adulthood. 1143 RUDN J Psychol Pedagog. 2024;21: 96–114. doi:10.22363/2313-1683-2024-21-1-96- .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 84 1144 114 1145 64. Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PHT, Guttorm TK, Lyytinen H. Event-related potentials to 1146 pitch and rise time change in children with reading disabilities and typically reading 1147 children. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119: 100–115. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.064 1148 65. Hakvoort B, van der Leij A, Maurits N, Maassen B, van Zuijen TL. Basic auditory 1149 processing is related to familial risk, not to reading fluency: an ERP study. Cortex. 1150 2015;63: 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.08.013 1151 66. Flanagan S, Wilson AM, Gabrielczyk FC, MacFarlane A, Mandke KN, Goswami U. 1152 Amplitude rise time sensitivity in children with and without dyslexia: differential task 1153 effects and longitudinal relations to phonology and literacy. Front Psychol. 2024;15. 1154 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1245589 1155 67. Kalmylova IV, Shakhshaev SA. Effects of tone intensity and frequency on 1156 discrimination of the sound stimulus transition process. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 1157 1988;18: 378–383. doi:10.1007/BF01193882 1158 68. Leitman DI, Sehatpour P, Garidis C, Gomez-Ramirez M, Javitt DC. Preliminary 1159 Evidence of Pre-Attentive Distinctions of Frequency-Modulated Tones that Convey 1160 Affect. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011;5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00096 1161 69. Marecka M, Fosker T, Szewczyk J, Kałamała P, Wodniecka Z. AN EAR FOR 1162 LANGUAGE: SENSITIVITY TO FAST AMPLITUDE RISE TIMES PREDICTS 1163 NOVEL VOCABULARY LEARNING. Stud Second Lang Acquis. 2020;42: 987–1014. 1164 doi:10.1017/S0272263120000157 1165 70. Walsh MA, Diehl RL. Formant Transition Duration and Amplitude Rise Time as Cues .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 85 1166 to the Stop/Glide Distinction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1167 Section A. 1991;43: 603–620. doi:10.1080/14640749108400989 1168 71. Flanagan S, Wilson AM, Gabrielczyk FC, MacFarlane A, Mandke KN, Goswami U. 1169 Amplitude rise time sensitivity in children with and without dyslexia: differential task 1170 effects and longitudinal relations to phonology and literacy. Front Psychol. 2024;15: 1171 1245589. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1245589 1172 72. Rankin J, Sussman E, Rinzel J. Neuromechanistic Model of Auditory Bistability. 1173 Elhilali M, editor. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11: e1004555. 1174 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004555 1175 73. Cabrera L, Halliday LF. Relationship between sensitivity to temporal fine structure and 1176 spoken language abilities in children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. 1177 The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2020;148: 3334–3347. 1178 doi:10.1121/10.0002669 1179 74. Khatoon M, Nighute S, Awari A. Brainstem auditory evoked potential in different age 1180 groups. Int Jour of Biomed Res. 2012;3: 271–276. doi:10.7439/ijbr.v3i6.520 1181 75. Dushanova J, Christov M. Auditory event-related brain potentials for an early 1182 discrimination between normal and pathological brain aging. Neural Regen Res. 2013;8: 1183 1390–1399. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.15.006 1184 76. Bishop DVM, Anderson M, Reid C, Fox AM. Auditory Development between 7 and 11 1185 Years: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Study. Koenig T, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: 1186 e18993. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018993 1187 77. Gomot M, Giard M-H, Roux S, Barthélémy C, Bruneau N. Maturation of frontal and .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 86 1188 temporal components of mismatch negativity (MMN) in children: NeuroReport. 1189 2000;11: 3109–3112. doi:10.1097/00001756-200009280-00014 1190 78. Csépe V. On the Origin and Development of the Mismatch Negativity: Ear and Hearing. 1191 1995;16: 91–104. doi:10.1097/00003446-199502000-00007 1192 79. Helenius P, Salmelin R, Service E, Connolly JF, Leinonen S, Lyytinen H. Cortical 1193 activation during spoken-word segmentation in nonreading-impaired and dyslexic 1194 adults. The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for 1195 Neuroscience. 2002;22: 2936–2944. 1196 80. May PJC, Tiitinen H. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory 1197 deflection, explained. Psychophysiology. 2010;47: 66–122. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 1198 8986.2009.00856.x 1199 81. Wu H, Lu F, Yu B, Liu Q. Phonological acquisition and development in Putonghua- 1200 speaking children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 1201 2020;34: 844–860. doi:10.1080/02699206.2019.1702720 1202 82. Alcántara JI, Cope TE, Cope W, Weisblatt EJ. Auditory temporal-envelope processing 1203 in high-functioning children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neuropsychologia. 1204 2012;50: 1235–1251. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.034 1205 83. Dynia JM, Bean A, Justice LM, Kaderavek JN. Phonological awareness emergence in 1206 preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism & Developmental Language 1207 Impairments. 2019;4: 2396941518822453. doi:10.1177/2396941518822453 1208 84. Parida S, Yurasits K, Cancel VE, Zink ME, Mitchell C, Ziliak MC, et al. Rapid and 1209 objective assessment of auditory temporal processing using dynamic amplitude- .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint 87 1210 modulated stimuli. Commun Biol. 2024;7: 1517. doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07187-1 1211 1212 .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint .CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 9, 2026. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.06.710012doi: bioRxiv preprint