ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2020
Can auditory brain stem response accurately reflect the cochlear function?
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyperosmotic sisomicin infusion: a mouse model for hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Hyperosmotic Sisomicin Infusion: A Mouse Model for Hearing Loss.Research square · 2024Article
- Hair cell regeneration, reinnervation, and restoration of hearing thresholds in the avian hearing organ.Cell reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory brain stem response (ABR) and compound action potential (CAP) recordings have been used in animal research to determine hearing sensitivity. Because of the relative ease of testing, the ABR test has been more commonly used in assessing cochlear lesions than the CAP test. The purpose of this experiment is to examine the difference between these two methods in monitoring the dynamic changes in auditory function after cochlear damage and in detecting asymmetric hearing loss due to unilateral cochlear damage. ABR and CAP were measured in two models of cochlear damage: acoustic trauma induced by exposure to a narrowband noise centered at 4 kHz (2,800-5,600 Hz) at 105 dB sound pressure level for 5 h in chinchillas and unilateral cochlear damage induced by surgical destruction of one cochlea in guinea pigs. Cochlear hair cells were quantified after completing the evoked potential testing. In the noise-damaged model, we found different recovery patterns between ABR and CAP. At 1 day after noise exposure, the ABR and CAP assessment revealed a similar level of threshold shifts. However, at 30 days after noise exposure, ABR thresholds displayed an average of 20-dB recovery, whereas CAP thresholds showed no recovery. Notably, the CAP threshold signifies the actual condition of sensory cell pathogenesis in the cochlea because sensory cell death is known to be irreversible in mammals. After unilateral cochlear damage, we found that both CAP and ABR were affected by cross-hearing when testing the damaged ear with the testing stimuli delivered directly into the canal of the damaged ear. When cross-hearing occurred, ABR testing was not able to reveal the presence of cross-hearing because the ABR waveform generated by cross-stimulation was indistinguishable from that generated by the test ear (damaged ear), should the test ear be intact. However, CAP testing can provide a warning sign, since the typical CAP waveform became an ABR-like waveform when cross-hearing occurred. Our study demonstrates two advantages of the CAP test over the ABR test in assessing cochlear lesions: contributing evidence for the occurrence of cross-hearing when subjects have asymmetric hearing loss and providing a better assessment of the progression of cochlear pathogenesis.
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.