Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38927323›Full record

ArticleBiology2024

Auditory Sensory Gating: Effects of Noise.

Fan-Yin Cheng, Julia Campbell, Chang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Fan-Yin ChengDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6234-0578
Julia CampbellDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3985-6204
Chang LiuDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

Funding

The University of Texas at Austin Special Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) indicate that noise degrades auditory neural encoding, causing decreased peak amplitude and increased peak latency. Different types of noise affect CAEP responses, with greater informational masking causing additional degradation. In noisy conditions, attention can improve target signals' neural encoding, reflected by an increased CAEP amplitude, which may be facilitated through various inhibitory mechanisms at both pre-attentive and attentive levels. While previous research has mainly focused on inhibition effects during attentive auditory processing in noise, the impact of noise on the neural response during the pre-attentive phase remains unclear. Therefore, this preliminary study aimed to assess the auditory gating response, reflective of the sensory inhibitory stage, to repeated vowel pairs presented in background noise. CAEPs were recorded via high-density EEG in fifteen normal-hearing adults in quiet and noise conditions with low and high informational masking. The difference between the average CAEP peak amplitude evoked by each vowel in the pair was compared across conditions. Scalp maps were generated to observe general cortical inhibitory networks in each condition. Significant gating occurred in quiet, while noise conditions resulted in a significantly decreased gating response. The gating function was significantly degraded in noise with less informational masking content, coinciding with a reduced activation of inhibitory gating networks. These findings illustrate the adverse effect of noise on pre-attentive inhibition related to speech perception.

Indexed as

central inhibitioncortical auditory evoked potentialsenergetic maskinggatinginformational masking

Identifiers

PMID38927323
PMCPMC11200888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.