Hearing at speech frequencies is different from what we thought.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The tympanic covering layer contributes to basilar membrane elasticity potentially influencing human frequency resolution and speech perception.Journal of anatomy · 2026
   Article
2. On the use of the TIMIT, QuickSIN, NU-6, and other widely used bandlimited speech materials for speech perception experiments.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
   Article
3. The Spatial Origins of Cochlear Amplification Assessed by Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.Biophysical journal · 2020
   Article
4. Organ of Corti vibration within the intact gerbil cochlea measured by volumetric optical coherence tomography and vibrometry.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Mechanical tuning and amplification within the apex of the guinea pig cochlea.2017

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as