Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31505395›Full record

ReviewHearing research2019

Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function.

Jennifer Krizman, Nina Kraus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hearing research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines 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. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Microsaccade Direction Reveals the Variation in Auditory Selective Attention Processes.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Sleep State Influences Early Sound Encoding at Cortical But Not Subcortical Levels.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Jennifer KrizmanAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA. Electronic address: https://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu.
Nina KrausAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA. Electronic address: nkraus@northwestern.edu.

Funding

Subcortical auditory processing in sports-related concussions and contact/collision sportsR01NS102500 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI KRAUS, NINA · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
A preschool biomarker for literacyR01HD069414 · NICHD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI KRAUS, NINA · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD069414NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiological response to sound that precisely reflects the ongoing dynamics of sound. It can be used to study the integrity and malleability of neural encoding of sound across the lifespan. Sound processing in the brain can be impaired with pathology and enhanced through expertise. The FFR can index linguistic deprivation, autism, concussion, and reading impairment, and can reflect the impact of enrichment with short-term training, bilingualism, and musicianship. Because of this vast potential, interest in the FFR has grown considerably in the decade since our first tutorial. Despite its widespread adoption, there remains a gap in the current knowledge of its analytical potential. This tutorial aims to bridge this gap. Using recording methods we have employed for the last 20 + years, we have explored many analysis strategies. In this tutorial, we review what we have learned and what we think constitutes the most effective ways of capturing what the FFR can tell us. The tutorial covers FFR components (timing, fundamental frequency, harmonics) and factors that influence FFR (stimulus polarity, response averaging, and stimulus presentation/recording jitter). The spotlight is on FFR analyses, including ways to analyze FFR timing (peaks, autocorrelation, phase consistency, cross-phaseogram), magnitude (RMS, SNR, FFT), and fidelity (stimulus-response correlations, response-to-response correlations and response consistency). The wealth of information contained within an FFR recording brings us closer to understanding how the brain reconstructs our sonic world.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, AuditorySpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAuditory PathwaysHearing DisordersHumansPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31505395
PMCPMC6778514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.