Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28855554›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Frequency sensitivity in mammalian hearing from a fundamental nonlinear physics model of the inner ear.

Karlis Kanders, Tom Lorimer, Florian Gomez, Ruedi Stoop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A comparative study of eight human auditory models of monaural processing.Acta acustica. European Acoustics Association · 2022
    Article
  2. Why Hearing Aids Fail and How to Solve This.Frontiers in network physiology · 2022
    Article
  3. Regulation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase in the Reticular Lamina of the Organ of Corti by a Nitric Oxide Donor.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Karlis KandersInstitute of Neuroinformatics and Institute of Computational Science, University and ETH Zürich Irchel Campus, Winterthurerstr. 190, 8057, Zürich, Switzerland.
Tom LorimerInstitute of Neuroinformatics and Institute of Computational Science, University and ETH Zürich Irchel Campus, Winterthurerstr. 190, 8057, Zürich, Switzerland.
Florian GomezInstitute of Neuroinformatics and Institute of Computational Science, University and ETH Zürich Irchel Campus, Winterthurerstr. 190, 8057, Zürich, Switzerland.
Ruedi StoopInstitute of Neuroinformatics and Institute of Computational Science, University and ETH Zürich Irchel Campus, Winterthurerstr. 190, 8057, Zürich, Switzerland. ruedi@ini.phys.ethz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A dominant view holds that the outer and middle ear are the determining factors for the frequency dependence of mammalian hearing sensitivity, but this view has been challenged. In the ensuing debate, there has been a missing element regarding in what sense and to what degree the biophysics of the inner ear might contribute to this frequency dependence. Here, we show that a simple model of the inner ear based on fundamental physical principles, reproduces, alone, the experimentally observed frequency dependence of the hearing threshold. This provides direct cochlea modeling support of the possibility that the inner ear could have a substantial role in determining the frequency dependence of mammalian hearing.

Indexed as

AnimalsAuditory ThresholdEar, InnerHumansModels, TheoreticalNonlinear DynamicsPsychoacoustics

Identifiers

PMID28855554
PMCPMC5577103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.