ArticleScientific reports2019
Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do sung speech and background noise affect sentence repetition in dyslexia?Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Article
- The auditory brainstem response to natural speech is not affected by selective attention.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Fundamental frequency predominantly drives talker differences in auditory brainstem responses to continuous speech.JASA express letters · 2024Article
- Musicianship Modulates Cortical Effects of Attention on Processing Musical Triads.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Fundamental frequency predominantly drives talker differences in auditory brainstem responses to continuous speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Myogenic artifacts masquerade as neuroplasticity in the auditory frequency-following response.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Attentional Modulation of the Cortical Contribution to the Frequency-Following Response Evoked by Continuous Speech.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- The middle ear muscle reflex: Current and future role in assessing noise-induced cochlear damage.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Cortical-brainstem interplay during speech perception in older adults with and without hearing loss.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Early-life stress affects Mongolian gerbil interactions with conspecific vocalizations in a sex-specific manner.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Brainstem speech encoding is dynamically shaped online by fluctuations in cortical α state.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Cortical tracking of voice pitch in the presence of multiple speakers depends on selective attention.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- The neural response at the fundamental frequency of speech is modulated by word-level acoustic and linguistic information.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
- Machine-Learning-Based Rehabilitation Prognosis Prediction in Patients with Ischemic Stroke Using Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Defining the Role of Attention in Hierarchical Auditory Processing.Audiology research · 2021Review
- Subcortical rather than cortical sources of the frequency-following response (FFR) relate to speech-in-noise perception in normal-hearing listeners.Neuroscience letters · 2021Article
- Rapid Enhancement of Subcortical Neural Responses to Sine-Wave Speech.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with normal hearing thresholds can nonetheless have difficulty with understanding speech in noisy backgrounds. The origins of such supra-threshold hearing deficits remain largely unclear. Previously we showed that the auditory brainstem response to running speech is modulated by selective attention, evidencing a subcortical mechanism that contributes to speech-in-noise comprehension. We observed, however, significant variation in the magnitude of the brainstem's attentional modulation between the different volunteers. Here we show that this variability relates to the ability of the subjects to understand speech in background noise. In particular, we assessed 43 young human volunteers with normal hearing thresholds for their speech-in-noise comprehension. We also recorded their auditory brainstem responses to running speech when selectively attending to one of two competing voices. To control for potential peripheral hearing deficits, and in particular for cochlear synaptopathy, we further assessed noise exposure, the temporal sensitivity threshold, the middle-ear muscle reflex, and the auditory-brainstem response to clicks in various levels of background noise. These tests did not show evidence for cochlear synaptopathy amongst the volunteers. Furthermore, we found that only the attentional modulation of the brainstem response to speech was significantly related to speech-in-noise comprehension. Our results therefore evidence an impact of top-down modulation of brainstem activity on the variability in speech-in-noise comprehension amongst the subjects.
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.