ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
Effects of contralateral noise on envelope-following responses, auditory-nerve compound action potentials, and otoacoustic emissions measured simultaneously.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Human Auditory Nerve (AN) and Brainstem Function Through Level-Dependent Chirps and Predicted AN Firing Distributions.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- A computational model of the mammalian auditory periphery with a closed-loop medial olivocochlear reflex simulating across-channel efferent gain control.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed whether the effects of contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS) are consistent with eliciting the medial olivocochlear (MOC) reflex for measurements sensitive to outer hair cell (otoacoustic emissions, OAEs), auditory-nerve (AN; compound action potential, CAP), and brainstem/cortical (envelope-following response, EFR) function. The effects of CAS were evaluated for simultaneous measurement of OAEs, CAPs, and EFRs in participants with normal hearing. Clicks were presented at 40 or 98 Hz in three ipsilateral noise conditions (no noise, 45 dB SPL, and 55 dB SPL). For the no noise condition, CAS suppressed or enhanced EFR amplitudes for 40- and 98-Hz clicks, respectively, while CAS had no significant effect on CAP amplitudes. A follow-up experiment using slower rates (4.4-22.2 Hz) assessed whether this insignificant CAS effect on CAPs was from ipsilateral MOC stimulation or AN adaptation; however, CAS effects remained insignificant despite favorable signal-to-noise ratios. CAS-related enhancements of EFR and CAP amplitudes in ipsilateral noise were not observed, contrary to the anti-masking effect of the MOC reflex. EFR and OAE suppression from CAS were not significantly correlated. Thus, the effects of CAS on EFRs may not be solely mediated by the MOC reflex and may be partially mediated by higher auditory centers.
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.