ArticleHeliyon2025
Challenges in using pupil dilation responses to sounds as a reliable alternative to standard audiometric tests.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing hearing in neonates and uncooperative patients can be challenging. Pupil dilation response (PDR) as an objective physiological measure may offer a solution. To test its feasibility, PDRs were averaged in response to a sequence of 60-100 audible tones (same frequency and amplitude). This was performed in subjects with normal hearing and communication abilities, who were exposed to two different lighting levels. We evaluated whether averaged post-stimulus intervals of PDRs were significantly different from randomly generated averages of pupil traces recorded in the absence of sound stimulation from the same subject. This analysis was repeated for the first, second, and third block of PDRs to account for possible adaptation phenomena. Although all the participants clearly perceived the tones, significant PDRs in response to sound were only detected in a fraction of subjects, primarily in the low luminance condition. Consequently, only in the low luminance group, the grand average of individual PDRs was significantly larger than that obtained for traces recorded in the absence of sound input. In this most favorable condition, when the three blocks of PDRs were averaged separately, significant PDRs were observed in 40 % of the subjects in at least one of the blocks. Therefore, the PDR to sound input is not a reliable indicator of hearing perception when standard audiometric stimuli of the same amplitude and frequency are used. Possible modifications to sound input and stimulation protocols for obtaining reliable PDRs in diagnosing and treating hearing impairments are discussed.
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.