Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38738337›Full record

ReviewTrends in hearing

Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Deafferentation in Humans.

Naomi F Bramhall, Garnett P McMillan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Hearing Aids: What Works Well and What Can Be Improved.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  4. Beyond standard audiometry: Auditory dysfunction and steroid treatment outcomes in young adults following acoustic trauma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

2 authors.

Naomi F BramhallVA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1660-5322
Garnett P McMillanVA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

Mouse, Man, and Machine: Combining Model Systems to Develop a Biomarker for Cochlear Deafferentation in Humans (Administrative Supplement)R01DC020423 · NIDCD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Naomi Bramhall · 2022 to 2026
$3.3M
Resolving the Paradox of Hearing Complaints with a Normal Audiogram: Differential Diagnosis and Perceptual Impacts of Cochlear DeafferentationI01RX003804 · VA · PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI BRAMHALL, NAOMI · 2022 to 2025
–
National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory ResearchI50RX002361 · VA · PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI DAWN L KONRAD-MARTIN, Sarah Theodoroff · 2017 to 2026
–
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020423RRD VA I01 RX003804RRD VA I50 RX002361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear synaptopathy, a form of cochlear deafferentation, has been demonstrated in a number of animal species, including non-human primates. Both age and noise exposure contribute to synaptopathy in animal models, indicating that it may be a common type of auditory dysfunction in humans. Temporal bone and auditory physiological data suggest that age and occupational/military noise exposure also lead to synaptopathy in humans. The predicted perceptual consequences of synaptopathy include tinnitus, hyperacusis, and difficulty with speech-in-noise perception. However, confirming the perceptual impacts of this form of cochlear deafferentation presents a particular challenge because synaptopathy can only be confirmed through post-mortem temporal bone analysis and auditory perception is difficult to evaluate in animals. Animal data suggest that deafferentation leads to increased central gain, signs of tinnitus and abnormal loudness perception, and deficits in temporal processing and signal-in-noise detection. If equivalent changes occur in humans following deafferentation, this would be expected to increase the likelihood of developing tinnitus, hyperacusis, and difficulty with speech-in-noise perception. Physiological data from humans is consistent with the hypothesis that deafferentation is associated with increased central gain and a greater likelihood of tinnitus perception, while human data on the relationship between deafferentation and hyperacusis is extremely limited. Many human studies have investigated the relationship between physiological correlates of deafferentation and difficulty with speech-in-noise perception, with mixed findings. A non-linear relationship between deafferentation and speech perception may have contributed to the mixed results. When differences in sample characteristics and study measurements are considered, the findings may be more consistent.

Indexed as

CochleaSpeech PerceptionTinnitusAnimalsAuditory PerceptionHearing Loss, Noise-InducedHumansHyperacusisLoudness PerceptionNoiseSynapsescochlear deafferentationcochlear synaptopathyhyperacusisspeech-in-noise perceptiontinnitus

Identifiers

PMID38738337
PMCPMC11092548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.