ArticleeNeuro2023
Effect of Reverberation on Neural Responses to Natural Speech in Rabbit Auditory Midbrain: No Evidence for a Neural Dereverberation Mechanism.
Article in eNeuro, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Rethinking hierarchy: the auditory system as an integrated cortical-subcortical network.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Head-related transfer functions of rabbits within the front horizontal plane.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Recurrent Circuits Amplify Corticofugal Signals and Drive Feedforward Inhibition in the Inferior Colliculus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Reverberation is ubiquitous in everyday acoustic environments. It degrades both binaural cues and the envelope modulations of sounds and thus can impair speech perception. Still, both humans and animals can accurately perceive reverberant stimuli in most everyday settings. Previous neurophysiological and perceptual studies have suggested the existence of neural mechanisms that partially compensate for the effects of reverberation. However, these studies were limited by their use of either highly simplified stimuli or rudimentary reverberation simulations. To further characterize how reverberant stimuli are processed by the auditory system, we recorded single-unit (SU) and multiunit (MU) activity from the inferior colliculus (IC) of unanesthetized rabbits in response to natural speech utterances presented with no reverberation ("dry") and in various degrees of simulated reverberation (direct-to-reverberant energy ratios (DRRs) ranging from 9.4 to -8.2 dB). Linear stimulus reconstruction techniques (Mesgarani et al., 2009) were used to quantify the amount of speech information available in the responses of neural ensembles. We found that high-quality spectrogram reconstructions could be obtained for dry speech and in moderate reverberation from ensembles of 25 units. However, spectrogram reconstruction quality deteriorated in severe reverberation for both MUs and SUs such that the neural degradation paralleled the degradation in the stimulus spectrogram. Furthermore, spectrograms reconstructed from responses to reverberant stimuli resembled spectrograms of reverberant speech better than spectrograms of dry speech. Overall, the results provide no evidence for a dereverberation mechanism in neural responses from the rabbit IC when studied with linear reconstruction techniques.
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.