ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
Relating monaural and binaural measures of modulation sensitivity in listeners with and without hearing loss.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Listeners are sensitive to interaural time differences carried in the envelope of high-frequency sounds (ITDENV), but the salience of this cue depends on certain properties of the envelope and, in particular, on the presence/depth of amplitude modulation (AM) in the envelope. This study tested the hypothesis that individuals with sensorineural hearing loss, who show enhanced sensitivity to AM under certain conditions, would also show superior ITDENV sensitivity under those conditions. The second hypothesis was that variations in ITDENV sensitivity across individuals can be related to variations in sensitivity to AM. To enable a direct comparison, a standard adaptive AM detection task was used along with a modified version of it designed to measure ITDENV sensitivity. The stimulus was a 4-kHz tone modulated at rates of 32, 64, or 128 Hz and presented at a 30 dB sensation level. Both tasks were attempted by 16 listeners with normal hearing and 16 listeners with hearing loss. Consistent with the hypotheses, AM and ITDENV thresholds were correlated and tended to be better in listeners with hearing loss. A control experiment emphasized that absolute level may be a consideration when interpreting the group effects.
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.