Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33656936›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2021

Envelope following responses predict speech-in-noise performance in normal-hearing listeners.

Anita M Mepani, Sarah Verhulst, Kenneth E Hancock, Markus Garrett, Viacheslav Vasilkov, Kara Bennett, Victor de Gruttola, M Charles Liberman, Stéphane F Maison

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Auditory processing abilities in daily motorbike riders.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Noise-induced hearing disorders: Clinical and investigational tools.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anita M MepaniEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sarah VerhulstDepartment of Information Technology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-7719
Kenneth E HancockEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Markus GarrettDepartment of Information Technology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0115-5288
Viacheslav VasilkovDepartment of Information Technology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kara BennettDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Victor de GruttolaDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
M Charles LibermanEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stéphane F MaisonEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USGhent University · BEHarvard University · USCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DE

Funding

Synaptopathy, Neural Pathophysiology and Suprathreshold Processing in Gerbils with Normal or Elevated ThresholdsP50DC015857 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI Sharon G Kujawa · 2017 to 2026
$28.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC015857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Permanent threshold elevation after noise exposure or aging is caused by loss of sensory cells; however, animal studies show that hair cell loss is often preceded by degeneration of the synapses between sensory cells and auditory nerve fibers. Silencing these neurons is likely to degrade auditory processing and may contribute to difficulties understanding speech in noisy backgrounds. Reduction of suprathreshold ABR amplitudes can be used to quantify synaptopathy in inbred mice. However, ABR amplitudes are highly variable in humans, and thus more challenging to use. Since noise-induced neuropathy preferentially targets fibers with high thresholds and low spontaneous rate and because phase locking to temporal envelopes is particularly strong in these fibers, measuring envelope following responses (EFRs) might be a more robust measure of cochlear synaptopathy. A recent auditory model further suggests that modulation of carrier tones with rectangular envelopes should be less sensitive to cochlear amplifier dysfunction and, therefore, a better metric of cochlear neural damage than sinusoidal amplitude modulation. In this study, we measure performance scores on a variety of difficult word-recognition tasks among listeners with normal audiograms and assess correlations with EFR magnitudes to rectangular versus sinusoidal modulation. Higher harmonics of EFR magnitudes evoked by a rectangular-envelope stimulus were significantly correlated with word scores, whereas those evoked by sinusoidally modulated tones did not. These results support previous reports that individual differences in synaptopathy may be a source of speech recognition variability despite the presence of normal thresholds at standard audiometric frequencies.

Indexed as

AudiometryAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAge FactorsAgingAuditory ThresholdCochleaCochlear NerveFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNoiseRecognition, PsychologySpeech Perceptionauditory nervecochleacochlear synaptopathyenvelope following responseshearing in noise

Identifiers

PMID33656936
PMCPMC8282226
OpenAlexW3135605731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.