ArticleTrends in hearing2016
Complex-Tone Pitch Discrimination in Listeners With Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
Article in Trends in hearing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between hearing loss but not age and mistuning perception in music.Hearing research · 2025Article
- The evaluation of tactile dysfunction in the hand in type 1 diabetes: a novel method based on haptics.Acta diabetologica · 2022Article
- Dichotic spectral integration range for consonant recognition in listeners with normal hearing.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Spatial rehabilitation using virtual auditory space training paradigm in individuals with sensorineural hearing impairment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Effects of Musical Training and Hearing Loss on Fundamental Frequency Discrimination and Temporal Fine Structure Processing: Psychophysics and Modeling.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2019Article
- How We Hear: The Perception and Neural Coding of Sound.Annual review of psychology · 2018Review
- Effect of Chronological Age on Pulse Rate Discrimination in Adult Cochlear-Implant Users.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physiological studies have shown that noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) enhances the amplitude of envelope coding in auditory-nerve fibers. As pitch coding of unresolved complex tones is assumed to rely on temporal envelope coding mechanisms, this study investigated pitch-discrimination performance in listeners with SNHL. Pitch-discrimination thresholds were obtained for 14 normal-hearing (NH) and 10 hearing-impaired (HI) listeners for sine-phase (SP) and random-phase (RP) complex tones. When all harmonics were unresolved, the HI listeners performed, on average, worse than NH listeners in the RP condition but similarly to NH listeners in the SP condition. The increase in pitch-discrimination performance for the SP relative to the RP condition (F0DL ratio) was significantly larger in the HI as compared with the NH listeners. Cochlear compression and auditory-filter bandwidths were estimated in the same listeners. The estimated reduction of cochlear compression was significantly correlated with the increase in the F0DL ratio, while no correlation was found with filter bandwidth. The effects of degraded frequency selectivity and loss of compression were considered in a simplified peripheral model as potential factors in envelope enhancement. The model revealed that reducing cochlear compression significantly enhanced the envelope of an unresolved SP complex tone, while not affecting the envelope of a RP complex tone. This envelope enhancement in the SP condition was significantly correlated with the increased pitch-discrimination performance for the SP relative to the RP condition in the HI 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.