ArticleHearing research2022
Relations between speech-reception, psychophysical temporal processing, and subcortical electrophysiological measures of auditory function in humans.
Article in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory brainstem response amplitude predicts age-related forward masking temporal-processing deficits in normal-hearing listeners.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing placement and polarity configurations of a two-magnet fingertip vibrotactile device.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Developing a Calibration Method to Minimize Variability in Auditory Evoked Potentials.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review: State of the Science on Diagnostics of Hidden Hearing Loss.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- DX243 counteracts both acoustic trauma-induced reduction in cortical brain oscillations and cochlear synaptopathy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Neural Adaptation at Stimulus Onset and Speed of Neural Processing as Critical Contributors to Speech Comprehension Independent of Hearing Threshold or Age.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- BOLD fMRI responses to amplitude-modulated sounds across age in adult listeners.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Evidence of Validity and Normative Values of a New Auditory Backward Masking Test.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Deafferentation in Humans.Trends in hearingReview
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
There is a large amount of variability in performance in masked-speech reception tasks, as well as in psychophysical auditory temporal processing tasks, between listeners with normal or relatively normal low-frequency hearing. In this study we used a cross-sectional dataset collected on 102 listeners (34 young, 34 middle-aged, 34 older) to assess whether variance in these tasks could be explained by variance in subcortical electrophysiological measures of auditory function (auditory brainstem responses and frequency following responses), and whether variance in speech-reception performance could be explained by variance in auditory temporal processing tasks. The potential confounding effect of high-frequency sensitivity was strictly controlled for by using highpass masking noise. Because each high-level construct (masked-speech reception, auditory temporal processing, and subcortical electrophysiological function) was indexed by several variables, we used principal component analyses to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset. Multiple-regression models were then used to assess the associations between the extracted principal components while controlling for a range of possible confounders including age and audiometric thresholds. We found that masked-speech reception was credibly associated with psychophysical auditory temporal processing abilities. No credible associations were found between masked-speech reception and electrophysiological measures of subcortical auditory function, or between psychophysical measures of auditory temporal processing and electrophysiological measures of subcortical auditory function. These results suggest that either the electrophysiological measures of subcortical auditory function used were not sufficiently sensitive to the subcortical neural processes limiting performance in the speech-reception and psychophysical auditory temporal-processing tasks, or that variance in these tasks is largely unrelated to variance in subcortical neural processes in listeners with near-normal 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.