Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35149333›Full record

ArticleHearing research2022

Relations between speech-reception, psychophysical temporal processing, and subcortical electrophysiological measures of auditory function in humans.

Samuele Carcagno, Christopher J Plack

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Developing a Calibration Method to Minimize Variability in Auditory Evoked Potentials.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Samuele CarcagnoDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, United Kingdom; Brain and Cognition Research Centre, University of Toulouse Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France; Brain and Cognition Research Centre, CNRS, UMR-5549, Toulouse, France. Electronic address: samuele.carcagno@cnrs.fr.
Christopher J PlackDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, United Kingdom; Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Centre de recherche cerveau et cognition · FRLancaster University · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M007243/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Speech PerceptionTime PerceptionAuditory ThresholdCross-Sectional StudiesHearingHumansMiddle AgedPerceptual MaskingSpeechCochlear synaptopathyHearing lossPitchPresbycusisSpeech receptionTemporal coding

Identifiers

PMID35149333
PMCPMC8935383
OpenAlexW4210444594

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.