Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710932›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2019

Tympanic membrane surface motions in forward and reverse middle ear transmissions.

Jeffrey Tao Cheng, Nima Maftoon, Jérémie Guignard, Michael E Ravicz, John Rosowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acoustical Effects of Tympanostomy Tube Attachment to Human Tympanic Membrane.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Article
  2. Mechanical Effects of Medical Device Attachment to Human Tympanic Membrane.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffrey Tao ChengEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Nima MaftoonEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Jérémie GuignardEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Michael E RaviczEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
John RosowskiEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

Middle Ear Nonlinearity in High Intensity Sound: Impact on Hearing Damage and ProtectionR01DC016079 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI Jeffrey Tao Cheng · 2017 to 2026
$4.1M
Computer-based Holography and Middle-Ear FunctionR01DC008642 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI ROSOWSKI, JOHN J · 2007 to 2014
$2.2M
Backward and Forward Driven Eardrum MotionsR03DC011617 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI CHENG, JEFFREY TAO · 2011 to 2013
$463k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008642NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016079NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC011617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Characterization of Tympanic Membrane (TM) surface motions with forward and reverse stimulation is important to understanding how the TM transduces acoustical and mechanical energy in both directions. In this paper, stroboscopic opto-electronic holography is used to quantify motions of the entire TM surface induced by forward sound and reverse mechanical stimulation in human cadaveric ears from 0.25 to 18.4 kHz. The forward sound stimulus was coupled to an anatomically realistic artificial ear canal that allowed optical access to the entire TM surface, and the reverse mechanical stimulus was applied to the body of the incus by a piezo-electric stimulator. The results show clear differences in TM surface motions evoked by the two stimuli. In the forward case, TM motion is dominated by standing-wave-like modal motions that are consistent with a relatively uniform sound-pressure load over the entire TM surface. With reverse mechanical stimulation, the TM surface shows more traveling waves, consistent with a localized mechanical drive applied to the manubrium embedded in the TM. With both stimuli, the manubrium moves less than the rest of the TM, consistent with the TM acting like a compliant membrane rather than a stiff diaphragm, and also consistent with catenary behavior due to the TM's curved shape.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAgedBone ConductionEar, MiddleFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotionStress, MechanicalTemporal BoneTympanic Membrane

Identifiers

PMID30710932
PMCPMC6338545
OpenAlexW2920972364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.