Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33979393›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks.

Dennis McFadden, Craig A Champlin, Michelle H Pho, Edward G Pasanen, Mindy M Maloney, Erin M Leshikar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Could Tailored Chirp Stimuli Benefit Measurement of the Supra-threshold Auditory Brainstem Wave-I Response?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  10. 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 · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Dennis McFaddenDepartment of Psychology, Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1213-4829
Craig A ChamplinDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Michelle H PhoDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Edward G PasanenDepartment of Psychology, Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Mindy M MaloneyDepartment of Psychology, Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Erin M LeshikarDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.

Funding

Group and Individual Differences in AuditionR01DC000153 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI MCFADDEN, DENNIS · 1989 to 2010
$5.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000153
6 · The paper itself

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

Race FactorsSex FactorsAcoustic StimulationAudiometryAuditory PerceptionAuditory ThresholdEvoked Potentials, AuditoryEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemFemaleHearingHearing TestsHumansMaleMenstrual CyclePsychoacousticsReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID33979393
PMCPMC8115856

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.