ArticleAudiology research2013
Effects of Stimulus Intensity on Low-Frequency Toneburst Cochlear Microphonic Waveforms.
Article in Audiology research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling Cochlear Dynamics: The Effect of Clicks, Tone Burst Frequencies, Polarity, and Stimulus Rates on Cochlear Microphonics in Individuals with Normal Hearing.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024Article
- Article
- Tone-Burst Auditory Brainstem Response and Cortical Potentials in Diagnosis of Syndromic Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder.Journal of audiology & otology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates changes in amplitude and delays in low-frequency toneburst cochlear microphonic (CM) waveforms recorded at the ear canal in response to different stimulus intensities. Ten volunteers aged 20-30 were recruited. Low-frequency CM waveforms at 500 Hz in response to a 14-ms toneburst were recorded from an ear canal electrode using electrocochleography techniques. The data was statistically analyzed in order to confirm whether the differences were significant in the effects of stimulus intensity on the amplitudes and delays of the low-frequency CM waveforms. Electromagnetic interference artifacts can jeopardize CM measurements but such artifacts can be avoided. The CM waveforms can be recorded at the ear canal in response to a toneburst which is longer than that used in ABR measurements. The CM waveforms thus recorded are robust, and the amplitude of CM waveforms is intensity-dependent. In contrast, the delay of CM waveforms is intensity-independent, which is different from neural responses as their delay or latency is intensity-dependent. These findings may be useful for development of the application of CM measurement as a supplementary approach to otoacoustic emission (OAE) measurement in the clinic which is severely affected by background acoustic noise. The development of the application in the assessment of low-frequency cochlear function may become possible if a further series of studies can verify the feasibility, but it is not meant to be a substitute for audiometry or OAE measurements. The measurement of detection threshold of CM waveform responses using growth function approach may become possible in the clinic. The intensity-independent nature of CMs with regards to delay measurements may also become an impacting factor for differential diagnoses and for designing new research studies.
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.