ArticleTrends in hearing
Predicting Hearing aid Benefit Using Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses in Children With Hearing Loss.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frequency-Following Responses in Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Pooled it
- Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials as Biomarkers of Auditory Maturation in Children with Cochlear Implants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of digital noise reduction processing on subcortical speech encoding and relationship to behavioral outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of digital noise-reduction processing on subcortical speech encoding and relationship to behavioral outcomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Assessing Speech Audibility via Syllabic-Rate Neural Responses in Adults and Children With and Without Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroencephalography could serve as an objective tool to evaluate hearing aid benefit in infants who are developmentally unable to participate in hearing tests. We investigated whether speech-evoked envelope following responses (EFRs), a type of electroencephalography-based measure, could predict improved audibility with the use of a hearing aid in children with mild-to-severe permanent, mainly sensorineural, hearing loss. In 18 children, EFRs were elicited by six male-spoken band-limited phonemic stimuli--the first formants of /u/ and /i/, the second and higher formants of /u/ and /i/, and the fricatives /s/ and /∫/--presented together as /su∫i/. EFRs were recorded between the vertex and nape, when /su∫i/ was presented at 55, 65, and 75 dB SPL using insert earphones in unaided conditions and individually fit hearing aids in aided conditions. EFR amplitude and detectability improved with the use of a hearing aid, and the degree of improvement in EFR amplitude was dependent on the extent of change in behavioral thresholds between unaided and aided conditions. EFR detectability was primarily influenced by audibility; higher sensation level stimuli had an increased probability of detection. Overall EFR sensitivity in predicting audibility was significantly higher in aided (82.1%) than unaided conditions (66.5%) and did not vary as a function of stimulus or frequency. EFR specificity in ascertaining inaudibility was 90.8%. Aided improvement in EFR detectability was a significant predictor of hearing aid-facilitated change in speech discrimination accuracy. Results suggest that speech-evoked EFRs could be a useful objective tool in predicting hearing aid benefit in children with hearing loss.
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.