ArticleHearing research2018
Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure.
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 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of age and noise exposure history on auditory nerve response amplitudes: A systematic review, study, and meta-analysis.Hearing research · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term test-retest reliability of a few proxy measures of cochlear synaptopathy.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Sudden Traumatic Noise Exposure Induces an Altered Wave I in the Auditory Brainstem Response in Human.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2026Article
- Association between lifetime noise exposure and audiometric thresholds using the noise exposure structured interview.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring electrode montasges to optimize the non-invasive clinical recording of auditory evoked AP/wave I.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Optimal Timing for Auditory Brainstem Response After Tympanostomy Tube Placement in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review: State of the Science on Diagnostics of Hidden Hearing Loss.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reduced Neural Distinctiveness of Speech Representations in the Middle-Aged Brain.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Effects of Age and Noise Exposure History on Auditory Nerve Response Amplitudes: A Systematic Review, Study, and Meta-Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Exploring Electrode Placements to Optimize the Identification and Measurement of Early Auditory Evoked Potentials.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Minimum Detectable Differences in Electrocochleography Measurements: Bayesian-Based Predictions.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Article
- Noise Exposure in Palestinian Workers Without a Diagnosis of Hearing Impairment: Relations to Speech-Perception-in-Noise Difficulties, Tinnitus, and Hyperacusis.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Could Tailored Chirp Stimuli Benefit Measurement of the Supra-threshold Auditory Brainstem Wave-I Response?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Audiologic characterization using clinical physiological measures: Normative data from macaque monkeys.Hearing research · 2022Article
- Examining the Profile of Noise-Induced Cochlear Synaptopathy Using iPhone Health App Data and Cochlear and Brainstem Electrophysiological Responses to Fast Clicks Rates.Seminars in hearing · 2022Review
- Auditory Evoked Potentials in Communication Disorders: An Overview of Past, Present, and Future.Seminars in hearing · 2022Review
- Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Using Investigational Medicines for the Inner Ear: Previous Trial Outcomes Should Inform Future Trial Design.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2022Review
- Current topics in hearing research: Deafferentation and threshold independent hearing loss.Hearing research · 2022Review
- Evidence for Loss of Activity in Low-Spontaneous-Rate Auditory Nerve Fibers of Older Adults.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a sub-cortical evoked potential in which a series of well-defined waves occur in the first 10 ms after the onset of an auditory stimulus. Wave V of the ABR, particularly wave V latency, has been shown to be remarkably stable over time in individual listeners. However, little attention has been paid to the reliability of wave I, which reflects auditory nerve activity. This ABR component has attracted interest recently, as wave I amplitude has been identified as a possible non-invasive measure of noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy. The current study aimed to determine whether ABR wave I amplitude has sufficient test-retest reliability to detect impaired auditory nerve function in an otherwise normal-hearing listener. Thirty normal-hearing females were tested, divided equally into low- and high-noise exposure groups. The stimulus was an 80 dB nHL click. ABR recordings were made from the ipsilateral mastoid and from the ear canal (using a tiptrode). Although there was some variability between listeners, wave I amplitude had high test-retest reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) comparable to that for wave V amplitude. There were slight gains in reliability for wave I amplitude when recording from the ear canal (ICC of 0.88) compared to the mastoid (ICC of 0.85). The summating potential (SP) and ratio of SP to wave I were also quantified and found to be much less reliable than measures of wave I and V amplitude. Finally, we found no significant differences in the amplitude of any wave components between low- and high-noise exposure groups. We conclude that, if the other sources of between-subject variability can be controlled, wave I amplitude is sufficiently reliable to accurately characterize individual differences in auditory nerve function.
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.