ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2017
Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2017. 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.
- Relative changes in the cochlear summating potentials to paired-clicks predict speech-in-noise perception and subjective hearing acuity.JASA express letters · 2022Article
- Neural Contributions to the Cochlear Summating Potential: Spiking and Dendritic Components.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Relations between speech-reception, psychophysical temporal processing, and subcortical electrophysiological measures of auditory function in humans.Hearing research · 2022Article
- Electrophysiological markers of cochlear function correlate with hearing-in-noise performance among audiometrically normal subjects.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Cochlear Microphonic and Summating Potential Responses from Click-Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses in High-Risk and Normal Infants.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2018Article
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
Abstract
Electrocochleography (ECochG) to high repetition rate tone bursts may have advantages over ECochG to clicks with standard slow rates. Tone burst stimuli presented at a high repetition rate may enhance summating potential (SP) measurements by reducing neural contributions resulting from neural adaptation to high stimulus repetition rates. To allow for the analysis of the complex ECochG responses to high rates, we deconvolved responses using the Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution (CLAD) technique. We examined the effect of high stimulus repetition rate and stimulus duration on SP amplitude measurements made with extratympanic ECochG to tone bursts in 20 adult females with normal hearing. We used 500 and 2,000 Hz tone bursts of various stimulus durations (12, 6, 3 ms) and repetition rates (five rates ranging from 7.1 to 234.38/s). A within-subject repeated measures (rate x duration) analysis of variance was conducted. We found that, for both 500 and 2,000 Hz stimuli, the mean deconvolved SP amplitudes were larger at faster repetition rates (58.59 and 97.66/s) compared to slower repetition rates (7.1 and 19.53/s), and larger at shorter stimulus duration compared longer stimulus duration. Our concluding hypothesis is that large SP amplitude to short duration stimuli may originate primarily from neural excitation, and large SP amplitudes to long duration, fast repetition rate stimuli may originate from hair cell responses. While the hair cell or neural origins of the SP to various stimulus parameters remains to be validated, our results nevertheless provide normative data as a step toward applying the CLAD technique to understanding diseased ears.
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.