ArticlePloS one2021
Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early life visceral stress induces auditory brainstem sensitization and cochlear proteomic alterations in a rat model of irritable bowel syndrome.Neurobiology of stress · 2026Article
- The Influence of Sex, Ear, and Age on Auditory Brainstem Responses Recorded with the NeuroAudio System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Central Abnormalities in Idiopathic Tinnitus With Mild Hearing Loss: Selective Attention and Preprocessing Dysfunction.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Electrophysiological Variations in Auditory Potentials in Chronic Tinnitus Individuals: Treatment Response and Tinnitus Laterality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Sensorimotor Processing in Elite and Sub-Elite Adolescent Sprinters during Sprint Starts: An Electrophysiological Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Modest sex differences in the test of basic auditory capabilities (TBAC).Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Hyperacusis: Focus on Gender Differences: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Development of Machine-Learning Models for Tinnitus-Related Distress Classification Using Wavelet-Transformed Auditory Evoked Potential Signals and Clinical Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Could Tailored Chirp Stimuli Benefit Measurement of the Supra-threshold Auditory Brainstem Wave-I Response?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- The effect of female hormone in otosclerosis. A comparative study and speculation about their effect on the ossicular chain based on the clinical results.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 · 2022Article
- Sex differences in number of X chromosomes and X-chromosome inactivation in females promote greater variability in hearing among males.Biology of sex differences · 2022Article
- Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and auditory middle-latency responses (AMLRs) to a click stimulus were measured in about 100 subjects. Of interest were the sex differences in those auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), the correlations between the various AEP measures, and the correlations between the AEP measures and measures of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and behavioral performance also measured on the same subjects. Also of interest was how the menstrual cycle affected the various AEP measures. Most ABR measures and several AMLR measures exhibited sex differences, and many of the former were substantial. The sex differences tended to be larger for latency than for amplitude of the waves, and they tended to be larger for a weak click stimulus than for a strong click. The largest sex difference was for Wave-V latency (effect size ~1.2). When subjects were dichotomized into Non-Whites and Whites, the race differences in AEPs were small within sex. However, sex and race interacted so that the sex differences often were larger for the White subjects than for the Non-White subjects, particularly for the latency measures. Contrary to the literature, no AEP measures differed markedly across the menstrual cycle. Correlations between various AEP measures, and between AEP and OAE measures, were small and showed no consistent patterns across sex or race categories. Performance on seven common psychoacoustical tasks was only weakly correlated with individual AEP measures (just as was true for the OAEs also measured on these subjects). AMLR Wave Pa unexpectedly did not show the decrease in latency and increase in amplitude typically observed for AEPs when click level was varied from 40 to 70 dB nHL (normal Hearing Level). For the majority of the measures, the variability of the distribution of scores was greater for the males than for the females.
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.