Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36709582›Full record

ArticleHearing research2023

Brainstem auditory physiology in children with listening difficulties

Lisa L Hunter, Chelsea M Blankenship, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham, Linda Hood, Lina Motlagh Zadeh, David R Moore

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reduced neural speech tracking in adolescents with listening difficulty.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Auditory Deprivation during Development Alters Efferent Neural Feedback and Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lisa L HunterCommunication Sciences Research Center, Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; College of Medicine, Otolaryngology and College of Allied Health Sciences, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; College of Allied Health Sciences, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: lisa.hunter@cchmc.org.
Chelsea M BlankenshipCommunication Sciences Research Center, Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Barbara Shinn-CunninghamNeuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Linda HoodVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Lina Motlagh ZadehCommunication Sciences Research Center, Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
David R MooreCommunication Sciences Research Center, Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Research in Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; College of Medicine, Otolaryngology and College of Allied Health Sciences, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, University of Manchester, U.K.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USCarnegie Mellon University · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., KISSELA, BRETT M · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
WIDEBAND CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING OF MIDDLE-EAR AND COCHLEAR FUNCTIONR01DC010202 · NIDCD · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI FEENEY, MARTIN PATRICK, HUNTER, LISA LEIGH · 2009 to 2013
$3.9M
Supplement - Earliest Predictors of Language Outcomes in High-risk InfantsR01DC018734 · NIDCD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HUNTER, LISA LEIGH, VANNEST, JENNIFER J. · 2020 to 2024
$3.8M
Prevention of Ototoxicity with Effective Monitoring (POEM) Pharmacokinetic and Auditory LinkagesR01DC017867 · NIDCD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI GARINIS, ANGELA, HUNTER, LISA LEIGH · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
Idiopathic auditory dysfunction in children: nature and mechanismsR01DC014078 · NIDCD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI MOORE, DAVID · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
Department of HealthNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010202NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014078NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017867NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC018734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children who have listening difficulties (LiD) despite having normal audiometry are often diagnosed as having an auditory processing disorder. A lack of evidence regarding involvement of specific auditory mechanisms has limited development of effective treatments for these children. Here, we examined electrophysiologic evidence for brainstem pathway mechanisms in children with and without defined LiD. We undertook a prospective controlled study of 132 children aged 6-14 years with normal pure tone audiometry, grouped into LiD (n = 63) or Typically Developing (TD; n = 69) based on scores on the Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS), a validated caregiver report. The groups were matched on age at test, sex, race, and ethnicity. Neither group had diagnoses of major neurologic disorder, intellectual disability, or brain injuries. Both groups received a test battery including a measure of receptive speech perception against distractor speech, Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentences (LiSN-S), along with multiple neurophysiologic measures that tap afferent and efferent auditory subcortical pathways. Group analysis showed that participants with LiD performed significantly poorer on all subtests of the LiSN-S. The LiD group had significantly greater wideband middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR) growth functions in the left ear, and shorter Wave III and Wave V latencies in auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Across individual participants, shorter latency ABR Wave V correlated significantly with poorer parent report of LiD (ECLiPS composite). Greater MEMR growth functions also correlated with poorer ECLiPS scores and reduced LiSN-S talker advantage. The LiD and TD groups had equivalent summating potentials, compound action potentials, envelope-following responses, and binaurally activated medial olivocochlear reflexes. In conclusion, there was no evidence for auditory synaptopathy for LiD. Evidence for brainstem differences in the LiD group was interpreted as increased central gain, with shorter ABR Wave III and V latencies and steeper MEMR growth curves. These differences were related to poorer parent report and speech perception in competing speech ability.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionSpeech PerceptionBrain StemChildEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemHumansNoiseProspective StudiesAuditory brainstem responseAuditory processing disorderExtended high frequencyListening difficultyMiddle ear muscle reflexSpeech in noise

Identifiers

PMID36709582
PMCPMC10152893
OpenAlexW4317568785

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.