ArticleInternational journal of audiology2021
Comparison of two cortical measures of binaural hearing acuity.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Rate dependent neural responses of interaural-time-difference cues in fine-structure and envelope.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses.Hearing research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMultiple studies have demonstrated binaural hearing deficits in the aging and those with hearing loss. Consequently, there is great interest in developing efficient clinical tests of binaural hearing acuity to improve diagnostic assessments and to assist clinicians when fitting binaural hearing aids and/or cochlear implants.
designTwo cortical measures of interaural phase difference sensitivity, the acoustic change complex (ACC) and interaural phase modulation following response (IPM-FR), were compared on three metrics using five different stimulus interaural phase differences (IPDs; 0°, ±22.5°, ±45°, ±67.5° and ±90°). These metrics were scalp topography, time-to-detect, and input-output characteristics. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten young, normal-hearing listeners.
resultsScalp topography qualitatively differed between ACC and IPM-FR. The IPM-FR demonstrated better time-to-detect performance on smaller (±22.5° and ±45°) but not larger (67.5°, and ±90°) IPDs. Input-output characteristics of each response were similar.
conclusionsThe IPM-FR may be a faster and more efficient tool for assessing neural sensitivity to subtle IPD changes. However, the ACC may be useful for research or clinical questions concerned with the topographic representation of binaural cues.
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.