ReviewHearing research2022
Current topics in hearing research: Deafferentation and threshold independent hearing loss.
Review in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory processing abilities in daily motorbike riders.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 · 2026Article
- Functional and biochemical protection by combined N-acetylcysteine and D-methionine in guinea pig noise-induced hearing loss.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- [Clinical characteristics and therapeutic effect analysis of blast-induced hearing loss].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- The role of GDF15 in attenuating noise-induced hidden hearing loss by alleviating oxidative stress.Cell biology and toxicology · 2024Article
- Future Pharmacotherapy for Sensorineural Hearing Loss by Protection and Regeneration of Auditory Hair Cells.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- The middle ear muscle reflex: Current and future role in assessing noise-induced cochlear damage.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Hearing research findings in recent years have begun to change how we think about hearing loss and how we consider the risk of auditory damage from noise exposure. These findings include evidence of noise-induced cochlear damage in the absence of corresponding permanent threshold elevation or evidence of hair cell loss. Animal studies in several species have shown that noise exposures that produce robust but only temporary threshold shifts can permanently damage inner hair cell synaptic ribbons. This type of synaptic degeneration has also been shown to occur as a result of aging in animals and humans. The emergence of these data has motivated a number of clinical studies aimed at identifying the perceptual correlates associated with synaptopathy. The deficits believed to arise from synaptopathy include poorer hearing in background noise, tinnitus and hyperacusis (loudness intolerance). However, the findings from human studies have been mixed. Key questions remain as to whether synaptopathy reliably produces suprathreshold perceptual deficits or whether it serves as an early indicator of auditory damage with suprathreshold deficits emerging later as a function of further cochlear damage. Here, we provide an overview of both human and animal studies that explore the relationship among inner hair cell damage, including loss of afferent synapses, auditory thresholds, and suprathreshold measures of hearing.
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.