ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2020
Auditory sensory gating in Huffaz using an auditory brainstem response with a psychological task: A preliminary investigation.
Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate the auditory sensory gating capacity in Huffaz using an auditory brainstem response (ABR) test with and without psychological tasks.
methodsTwenty-three participants were recruited for this study. The participants were comprised of 11 Huffaz who memorized 30 chapters of the Islamic Scripture (from the Quran) and 12 non-Huffaz as the control group. All participants had normal hearing perception and underwent an ABR test with and without psychological tasks. The ABR was elicited at 70 dB nHL using a 3000 Hz tone burst stimulus with a 2-0-2 cycle at a stimulus repetition rate of 40 Hz. The ABR wave V amplitude and latencies were measured and statistically compared. A forward digit span test was also conducted to determine participants' working memory capacity.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the ABR wave V amplitudes and latencies between Huffaz and non-Huffaz in ABR with and without psychological tasks. There were also no significant differences in the ABR wave V amplitudes and latencies in both groups of ABR with and without psychological tasks. In addition, no significant differences were identified in the digit span working memory score between both groups.
conclusionsIn this study, based on the ABR findings, Huffaz showed the same auditory sensory gating capacity as the non-Huffaz group. The ABR result was consistent with the digit span working memory test score. This finding implies that both groups have similar working memory performance. However, the conclusion is limited to the specific assessment method that we used in this study.
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.