ArticleScientific reports2023
Auditory brainstem mechanisms likely compensate for self-imposed peripheral inhibition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Postnatal environment affects auditory development and sensorimotor gating in a rat model for autism spectrum disorder.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of contralateral noise on envelope-following responses, auditory-nerve compound action potentials, and otoacoustic emissions measured simultaneously.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feedback networks in the brain regulate downstream auditory function as peripheral as the cochlea. However, the upstream neural consequences of this peripheral regulation are less understood. For instance, the medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) in the brainstem causes putative attenuation of responses generated in the cochlea and cortex, but those generated in the brainstem are perplexingly unaffected. Based on known neural circuitry, we hypothesized that the inhibition of peripheral input is compensated for by positive feedback in the brainstem over time. We predicted that the inhibition could be captured at the brainstem with shorter (1.5 s) than previously employed long duration (240 s) stimuli where this inhibition is likely compensated for. Results from 16 normal-hearing human listeners support our hypothesis in that when the MOCR is activated, there is a robust reduction of responses generated at the periphery, brainstem, and cortex for short-duration stimuli. Such inhibition at the brainstem, however, diminishes for long-duration stimuli suggesting some compensatory mechanisms at play. Our findings provide a novel non-invasive window into potential gain compensation mechanisms in the brainstem that may have implications for auditory disorders such as tinnitus. Our methodology will be useful in the evaluation of efferent function in individuals 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.