ArticleHearing research2018
Addressing variability in the acoustic startle reflex for accurate gap detection assessment.
Article in Hearing research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Foxg1 gene mutation impairs auditory cortex response and reduces sound tolerance.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Nrf2 deficiency enhances oxidative stress and promotes susceptibility to tinnitus in mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transcriptional profile changes caused by noise-induced tinnitus in the cochlear nucleus and inferior colliculus of the rat.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Identifying tinnitus in mice by tracking the motion of body markers in response to an acoustic startle.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Transcriptional Profile Changes after Noise-Induced Tinnitus in Rats.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Universal automated classification of the acoustic startle reflex using machine learning.Hearing research · 2023Article
- Using an appetitive operant conditioning paradigm to screen rats for tinnitus induced by intense sound exposure: Experimental considerations and interpretation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Gap pre-pulse inhibition of the cortical auditory evoked potentials as a possible objective tinnitus assessment tool.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2023Article
- Decreasing dorsal cochlear nucleus activity ameliorates noise-induced tinnitus perception in mice.BMC biology · 2022Article
- Auditory Behavior in Adult-Blinded Mice.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Comparison of two behavioral tests for tinnitus assessment in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Robust and replicable measurement for prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response.Molecular psychiatry · 2021Article
- A novel arousal-based individual screening reveals susceptibility and resilience to PTSD-like phenotypes in mice.Neurobiology of stress · 2021Article
- An Auditory Phantom Percept That Does Not Impair External Sound Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Development of Tinnitus and Hyperacusis in a Mouse Model of Tobramycin Cochleotoxicity.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2021Article
- A Novel Mouse Model of Aminoglycoside-Induced Hyperacusis and Tinnitus.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Open(G)PIAS: An Open-Source Solution for the Construction of a High-Precision Acoustic Startle Response Setup for Tinnitus Screening and Threshold Estimation in Rodents.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2019Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The acoustic startle reflex (ASR) is subject to substantial variability. This inherent variability consequently shapes the conclusions drawn from gap-induced prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex (GPIAS) assessments. Recent studies have cast doubt as to the efficacy of this methodology as it pertains to tinnitus assessment, partially, due to variability in and between data sets. The goal of this study was to examine the variance associated with several common data collection variables and data analyses with the aim to improve GPIAS reliability. To study this the GPIAS tests were conducted in adult male and female CBA/CaJ mice. Factors such as inter-trial interval, circadian rhythm, sex differences, and sensory adaptation were each evaluated. We then examined various data analysis factors which influence GPIAS assessment. Gap-induced facilitation, data processing options, and assessments of tinnitus were studied. We found that the startle reflex is highly variable in CBA/CaJ mice, but this can be minimized by certain data collection factors. We also found that careful consideration of temporal fluctuations of the ASR and controlling for facilitation can lead to more accurate GPIAS results. This study provides a guide for reducing variance in the GPIAS methodology - thereby improving the diagnostic power of the test.
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.