ArticleScientific reports2021
On the use of envelope following responses to estimate peripheral level compression in the auditory system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering Compromised Speech-in-Noise Intelligibility in Older Listeners: The Role of Cochlear Synaptopathy.eNeuro · 2025Article
- The slowest timescales of neural synchronization reveal the strongest influence of auditory distraction.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Sensory representations and pupil-indexed listening effort provide complementary contributions to multi-talker speech intelligibility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Diagnosing awareness in disorders of consciousness with gamma-band auditory responses.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- On the use of envelope following responses to estimate peripheral level compression in the auditory system.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effects of age on electrophysiological measures of cochlear synaptopathy in humans.Hearing research · 2020Article
- Enhanced Place Specificity of the Parallel Auditory Brainstem Response: A Modeling Study.Trends in hearingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual estimates of cochlear compression may provide complementary information to traditional audiometric hearing thresholds in disentangling different types of peripheral cochlear damage. Here we investigated the use of the slope of envelope following response (EFR) magnitude-level functions obtained from four simultaneously presented amplitude modulated tones with modulation frequencies of 80-100 Hz as a proxy of peripheral level compression. Compression estimates in individual normal hearing (NH) listeners were consistent with previously reported group-averaged compression estimates based on psychoacoustical and distortion-product oto-acoustic emission (DPOAE) measures in human listeners. They were also similar to basilar membrane (BM) compression values measured invasively in non-human mammals. EFR-based compression estimates in hearing-impaired listeners were less compressive than those for the NH listeners, consistent with a reduction of BM compression. Cochlear compression was also estimated using DPOAEs in the same NH listeners. DPOAE estimates were larger (less compressive) than EFRs estimates, showing no correlation. Despite the numerical concordance between EFR-based compression estimates and group-averaged estimates from other methods, simulations using an auditory nerve (AN) model revealed that compression estimates based on EFRs might be highly influenced by contributions from off-characteristic frequency (CF) neural populations. This compromises the possibility to estimate on-CF (i.e., frequency-specific or "local") peripheral level compression with EFRs.
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.