ArticleNature biomedical engineering2022
Compression and amplification algorithms in hearing aids impair the selectivity of neural responses to speech.
Article in Nature biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Music Enjoyment in Hearing Loss: Beyond Auditory Perception.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Modelling neural coding in the auditory midbrain with high resolution and accuracy.Nature machine intelligence · 2025Article
- Article
- Large-scale electrophysiology and deep learning reveal distorted neural signal dynamics after hearing loss.eLife · 2023Article
- Network pharmacology and experimental evidence reveal the protective mechanism of Yi-Qi Cong-Ming decoction on age-related hearing loss.Pharmaceutical biology · 2022Article
- Why hearing aids are impaired.Nature biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology and the Communication Sciences.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Review
- The hunt for hidden hearing loss in humans: From preclinical studies to effective interventions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Human Auditory Ecology: Extending Hearing Research to the Perception of Natural Soundscapes by Humans in Rapidly Changing Environments.Trends in hearingArticle
- A Data-driven Distance Metric for Evaluating the effects of Dynamic Range Compression in Adverse Conditions.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In quiet environments, hearing aids improve the perception of low-intensity sounds. However, for high-intensity sounds in background noise, the aids often fail to provide a benefit to the wearer. Here, using large-scale single-neuron recordings from hearing-impaired gerbils-an established animal model of human hearing-we show that hearing aids restore the sensitivity of neural responses to speech, but not their selectivity. Rather than reflecting a deficit in supra-threshold auditory processing, the low selectivity is a consequence of hearing-aid compression (which decreases the spectral and temporal contrasts of incoming sound) and amplification (which distorts neural responses, regardless of whether hearing is impaired). Processing strategies that avoid the trade-off between neural sensitivity and selectivity should improve the performance of hearing aids.
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.