Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31264513›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses in Adult Hearing Aid Users: Effects of Aiding and Background Noise, and Prediction of Behavioral Measures.

Ghada BinKhamis, Antonio Elia Forte, Tobias Reichenbach, Martin O'Driscoll, Karolina Kluk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Frequency-Following Responses in Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Ghada BinKhamis1 Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7696-1073
Antonio Elia Forte3 John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Tobias Reichenbach4 Department of Bioengineering, Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Martin O'Driscoll1 Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Karolina Kluk1 Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of patients who are unable to provide behavioral responses on standard clinical measures is challenging due to the lack of standard objective (non-behavioral) clinical audiological measures that assess the outcome of an intervention (e.g., hearing aids). Brainstem responses to short consonant-vowel stimuli (speech-auditory brainstem responses [speech-ABRs]) have been proposed as a measure of subcortical encoding of speech, speech detection, and speech-in-noise performance in individuals with normal hearing. Here, we investigated the potential application of speech-ABRs as an objective clinical outcome measure of speech detection, speech-in-noise detection and recognition, and self-reported speech understanding in 98 adults with sensorineural hearing loss. We compared aided and unaided speech-ABRs, and speech-ABRs in quiet and in noise. In addition, we evaluated whether speech-ABR F0 encoding (obtained from the complex cross-correlation with the 40 ms [da] fundamental waveform) predicted aided behavioral speech recognition in noise or aided self-reported speech understanding. Results showed that (a) aided speech-ABRs had earlier peak latencies, larger peak amplitudes, and larger F0 encoding amplitudes compared to unaided speech-ABRs; (b) the addition of background noise resulted in later F0 encoding latencies but did not have an effect on peak latencies and amplitudes or on F0 encoding amplitudes; and (c) speech-ABRs were not a significant predictor of any of the behavioral or self-report measures. These results show that speech-ABR F0 encoding is not a good predictor of speech-in-noise recognition or self-reported speech understanding with hearing aids. However, our results suggest that speech-ABRs may have potential for clinical application as an objective measure of speech detection with hearing aids.

Indexed as

BehaviorEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemSpeech PerceptionAdultFemaleHearing AidsHearing Loss, SensorineuralHearing TestsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNoiseRecognition, PsychologySpeechaided speech-ABRbackground noisehearing aidSpeech-ABRspeech-in-noise performance

Identifiers

PMID31264513
PMCPMC6607564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.