ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2014
Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Feedback on Perceptual Estimates of Cochlear Gain and Compression.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2016Trial
- Duration effects on detection cues in simultaneous masking: Analysis using decision variable correlationa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Review
- Amplitude modulation detection with a short-duration carrier: Effects of a precursor and hearing loss.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018Article
- Effects of age and hearing loss on overshoot.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Temporal masking curves (TMCs) are often used to estimate cochlear compression in individuals with normal and impaired hearing. These estimates may yield a wide range of individual differences, even among subjects with similar quiet thresholds. This study used an auditory model to assess potential sources of variance in TMCs from 51 listeners in Poling et al. [J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 13:91-108 (2012)]. These sources included threshold elevation, the contribution of outer and inner hair cell dysfunction to threshold elevation, compression of the off-frequency linear reference, and detection efficiency. Simulations suggest that detection efficiency is a primary factor contributing to individual differences in TMCs measured in normal-hearing subjects, while threshold elevation and the contribution of outer and inner hair cell dysfunction are primary factors in hearing-impaired subjects. Approximating the most compressive growth rate of the cochlear response from TMCs was achieved only in subjects with the highest detection efficiency. Simulations included off-frequency nonlinearity in basilar membrane and inner hair cell processing; however, this nonlinearity did not improve predictions, suggesting that other sources, such as the decay of masking and the strength of the medial olivocochlear reflex, may mimic off-frequency nonlinearity. Findings from this study suggest that sources of individual differences can play a strong role in behavioral estimates of compression, and these sources should be considered when using forward masking to study cochlear function in individual listeners or across groups of listeners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.