ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2019
Sound pressure distribution within human ear canals: II. Reverse mechanical stimulation.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of tympanic-membrane orientation on acoustic ear-canal quantities: A finite-element analysis.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and middle-ear pressure gains in a finite-element mouse model.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This work is part of a study of the interactions of ear canal (EC) sound with tympanic membrane (TM) surface displacements. In human temporal bones, the ossicles were stimulated mechanically "in reverse" to mimic otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), and the sound field within the ear canal was sampled with 0.5-2 mm spacing near the TM surface and at more distal locations within the EC, including along the longitudinal EC axis. Sound fields were measured with the EC open or occluded. The reverse-driven sound field near the TM had larger and more irregular spatial variations below 10 kHz than with forward sound stimulation, consistent with a significant contribution of nonuniform sound modes. These variations generally did not propagate more than ∼4 mm laterally from the TM. Longitudinal sound field variations with the EC open or blocked were consistent with standing-wave patterns in tubes with open or closed ends. Relative contributions of the nonuniform components to the total sound pressure near the TM were largest at EC natural frequencies where the longitudinal component was small. Transverse variations in EC sound pressure can be reduced by reducing longitudinal EC sound pressure variations, e.g., via reducing reflections from occluding earplugs.
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.