Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34273451›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2021

Non-stimulus-evoked activity as a measure of neural noise in the frequency-following response.

Jennifer Krizman, Silvia Bonacina, Rembrandt Otto-Meyer, Nina Kraus

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Subcortical auditory system in tinnitus with normal hearing: insights from electrophysiological perspective.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 · 2024
    Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer KrizmanAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Silvia BonacinaAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Rembrandt Otto-MeyerAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Nina KrausAuditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: nkraus@northwestern.edu.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Subcortical auditory processing in sports-related concussions and contact/collision sportsR01NS102500 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI KRAUS, NINA · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiologic response that captures distinct aspects of sound processing. Like all evoked responses, FFR is susceptible to electric and myogenic noise contamination during collection. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response collection standards have been adopted for FFR collection, however, whether these standards sufficiently limit FFR noise contamination is unknown. Thus, a critical question remains: to what extent do distinct FFR components reflect noise contamination? This is especially relevant for prestimulus amplitude (i.e., activity preceding the evoked response), as this measure has been used to index both noise contamination and neural noise. NEW

methodWe performed two experiments. First, using >1000 young-adult FFRs, we ran regressions to determine the variance explained by myogenic and electrical noise, as indexed by artifact rejection count and electrode impedance, on each FFR component. Second, we reanalyzed prestimulus amplitude differences attributed to athletic experience and socioeconomic status, adding covariates of artifact rejection and impedance.

resultsWe found that non-neural noise marginally contributed to FFR components and could not explain group differences on prestimulus amplitude. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING

methodPrestimulus amplitude has been considered a measure of non-neural noise contamination. However, non-neural noise was not the sole contributor to variance in this measure and did not explain group differences.

conclusionsResults from the two experiments suggest that the effects of non-neural noise on FFR components are minimal and do not obscure individual differences in the FFR and that prestimulus amplitude indexes neural noise.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemNoiseAcoustic StimulationElectrodesArtifactElectrophysiologyFrequency following responseImpedance

Identifiers

PMID34273451
PMCPMC8403647
OpenAlexW3183172997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.