Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33479600›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in physiology2020

Listening in complex acoustic scenes.

Andrew J King, Kerry Mm Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Adaptation in auditory processing.Physiological reviews · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Neuromodulatory Mechanisms Underlying Contrast Gain Control in Mouse Auditory Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [Effects of background noise on auditory response characteristics of primary auditory cortex neurons in awake mice].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
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.

Andrew J KingDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.
Kerry Mm WalkerDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 108369
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Being able to pick out particular sounds, such as speech, against a background of other sounds represents one of the key tasks performed by the auditory system. Understanding how this happens is important because speech recognition in noise is particularly challenging for older listeners and for people with hearing impairments. Central to this ability is the capacity of neurons to adapt to the statistics of sounds reaching the ears, which helps to generate noise-tolerant representations of sounds in the brain. In more complex auditory scenes, such as a cocktail party - where the background noise comprises other voices, sound features associated with each source have to be grouped together and segregated from those belonging to other sources. This depends on precise temporal coding and modulation of cortical response properties when attending to a particular speaker in a multi-talker environment. Furthermore, the neural processing underlying auditory scene analysis is shaped by experience over multiple timescales.

Identifiers

PMID33479600
PMCPMC7116612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.