Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34452588›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Potential Destructive Binaural Interaction Effects in Auditory Steady-State Response Measurements.

Sam Watson, Søren Laugesen, Bastian Epp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sam WatsonDepartment of Health Technology, Hearing Systems, DTU, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8013-3166
Søren LaugesenInteracoustics Research Unit, Lyngby, Denmark.
Bastian EppDepartment of Health Technology, Hearing Systems, DTU, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An aided sound-field auditory steady-state response (ASSR) has the potential to be used to objectively validate hearing-aid (HA) fittings in clinics. Each aided ear should ideally be tested independently, but it is suspected that binaural testing may be used by clinics to reduce test time. This study simulates dichotic ASSR sound-field conditions to examine the risk of making false judgments due to unchecked binaural effects. Unaided ASSRs were recorded with a clinical two-channel electroencephalography (EEG) system for 15 normal hearing subjects using a three-band CE-Chirp® stimulus. It was found that the noise corrected power of a response harmonic can be suppressed by up to 10 dB by introducing large interaural time differences equal to half the time period of the stimulus envelope, which may occur in unilateral HA users. These large interaural time differences also changed the expression of ASSR power across the scalp, resulting in dramatically altered topographies. This would lead to considerably lower measured response power and possibly nondetections, evidencing that even well fit HAs are fit poorly (false referral), whereas monaural ASSR tests would pass. No effect was found for simulated lateralizations of the stimulus, which is beneficial for a proposed aided ASSR approach. Full-scalp ASSR recordings match previously found 40 Hz topographies but demonstrate suppression of cortical ASSR sources when using stimuli in interaural envelope antiphase.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsNoiseAcoustic StimulationAuditory ThresholdElectroencephalographyHumansantiphasedestructive interferenceenvelopehearing-aid validationlateralization

Identifiers

PMID34452588
PMCPMC8580520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.