Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28618834›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2017

Psychophysical and modeling approaches towards determining the cochlear phase response based on interaural time differences.

Hisaaki Tabuchi, Bernhard Laback

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hisaaki TabuchiAcoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040 Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard LabackAcoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040 Vienna, Austria.
Acoustics Research Institute · ATAustrian Academy of Sciences · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cochlear phase response is often estimated by measuring masking of a tonal target by harmonic complexes with various phase curvatures. Maskers yielding most modulated internal envelope representations after passing the cochlear filter are thought to produce minimum masking, with fast-acting cochlear compression as the main contributor to that effect. Thus, in hearing-impaired (HI) listeners, reduced cochlear compression hampers estimation of the phase response using the masking method. This study proposes an alternative approach, based on the effect of the envelope modulation strength on the sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITDs). To evaluate the general approach, ITD thresholds were measured in seven normal-hearing listeners using 300-ms Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes with nine different phase curvatures. ITD thresholds tended to be lowest for phase curvatures roughly similar to those previously shown to produce minimum masking. However, an unexpected ITD threshold peak was consistently observed for a particular negative phase curvature. An auditory-nerve based ITD model predicted the general pattern of ITD thresholds except for the threshold peak, as well as published envelope ITD data. Model predictions simulating outer hair cell loss support the feasibility of the ITD-based approach to estimate the phase response in HI listeners.

Indexed as

Auditory ThresholdHearingModels, TheoreticalAcoustic StimulationAdultCochleaCochlear NerveFemaleHair Cells, Auditory, OuterHumansMalePerceptual MaskingPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesPsychoacousticsTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28618834
PMCPMC5734621
OpenAlexW2624927866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.