Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39056695›Full record

ReviewBiology2024

Noises on-How the Brain Deals with Acoustic Noise.

Livia de Hoz, David McAlpine

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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

2 authors.

Livia de HozNeuroscience Research Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
David McAlpineNeuroscience Research Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Einstein Foundation EVF-2021-618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What is noise? When does a sound form part of the acoustic background and when might it come to our attention as part of the foreground? Our brain seems to filter out irrelevant sounds in a seemingly effortless process, but how this is achieved remains opaque and, to date, unparalleled by any algorithm. In this review, we discuss how noise can be both background and foreground, depending on what a listener/brain is trying to achieve. We do so by addressing questions concerning the brain's potential bias to interpret certain sounds as part of the background, the extent to which the interpretation of sounds depends on the context in which they are heard, as well as their ethological relevance, task-dependence, and a listener's overall mental state. We explore these questions with specific regard to the implicit, or statistical, learning of sounds and the role of feedback loops between cortical and subcortical auditory structures.

Indexed as

auditoryauditory cortexbackgroundfeedbackforegroundinferior colliculusloopsnoisestatistical learning

Identifiers

PMID39056695
PMCPMC11274191

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.