Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22696071›Full record

ArticleTrends in amplification2012

Response pattern based on the amplitude of ear canal recorded cochlear microphonic waveforms across acoustic frequencies in normal hearing subjects.

Ming Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in amplification, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The relationship between round window and ear canal Cochlear microphonic.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A mouse model validates the utility of electrocochleography in verifying endolymphatic hydrops.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ming ZhangUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. ming.zhang@ualberta.ca

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-frequency otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) are often concealed by acoustic background noise such as those from a patient's breathing and from the environment during recording in clinics. When using electrocochleaography (ECochG or ECoG), such as cochlear microphonics (CMs), acoustic background noise do not contaminate the recordings. Our objective is to study the response pattern of CM waveforms (CMWs) to explore an alternative approach in assessing cochlear functions. In response to a 14-msec tone burst across several acoustic frequencies, CMWs were recorded at the ear canal from ten normal hearing subjects. A relatively long tone burst has a relatively narrow frequency band. The CMW amplitudes among different frequencies were compared. The CMW amplitudes among different frequencies were compared. Two features were observed in the response pattern of CMWs: the amplitude of CMWs decreased with an increase of stimulus frequency of the tone bursts; and such a decrease occurred at a faster rate at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies. Five factors as potential mechanisms for these features are proposed. Clinical applications such as hearing screening are discussed. Therefore, the response pattern of CMWs suggests that they may be used as an alternative to OAEs in the assessment of cochlear functions in the clinic, especially at low frequencies.

Indexed as

Cochlear Microphonic PotentialsHearingAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAnalysis of VarianceArtifactsAudiometry, Evoked ResponseAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdCochleaEar CanalHumansOtoacoustic Emissions, SpontaneousReproducibility of ResultsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22696071
PMCPMC4040853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.