ReviewJournal of otology2018
Hidden cochlear impairments.
Review in Journal of otology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Clinic to Reality: Integrating Sound Field Testing and Hearing Quality Measures in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- DX243 counteracts both acoustic trauma-induced reduction in cortical brain oscillations and cochlear synaptopathy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Neural Adaptation at Stimulus Onset and Speed of Neural Processing as Critical Contributors to Speech Comprehension Independent of Hearing Threshold or Age.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorders: From Diagnosis to Treatment: Literature Review and Case Reports.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pure tone audiometry is a routine clinical examination used to identify hearing loss. A normal pure tone audiogram is usually taken as evidence of normal hearing. Auditory deficits detected in subjects with normal audiograms, such as poor sound discrimination and auditory perceptual disorders, are generally attributed to central problems. Does the pure tone audiogram truly reflect cochlear status? Recent evidence suggests that individuals with normal audiogram may still have reduced peripheral auditory responses but normal central responses, indicating that the pure tone audiometry may not detect some types of cochlear injuries. In the cochlea, the outer hair cells (OHCs), inner hair cells (IHCs), and the spiral ganglion neurons that synapse with IHCs are the 3 key cochlear components in transducing acoustical vibrations into the neural signals. This report reviews three types of cochlear damage identified in laboratory animals that may not lead to overt hearing loss. The first type of cochlear impairment, such as missing a certain proportion of IHCs without damage to OHCs, may reduce the cochlear output and elevate response threshold; however, the reduced peripheral auditory sensitivity may be restored along the auditory pathway via central gain enhancement. The second type of cochlear impairment, such as selective damage to the synapses of the high-threshold thin auditory nerve fibers (ANFs), reduces cochlear output at high stimulation levels with no effect on response threshold. In this case the reduced cochlear output may be compensated along the auditory pathway as well. The third type of cochlear impairment, such as missing a certain number of OHCs without damage to others, may not even affect cochlear function at all. These "hidden" cochlear impairments do not result in overt hearing loss, but they may increase the vulnerability of the cochlea to traumatic exposure and lead to disrupted central auditory processing.
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.