Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40084033›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2025

Challenges in using pupil dilation responses to sounds as a reliable alternative to standard audiometric tests.

Maria Paola Tramonti Fantozzi, Antonino Crivello, Davide La Rosa, Mario Milazzo, Serena Danti, Vincenzo De Cicco, Paolo Orsini, Diego Manzoni, Francesco Lazzerini, Rachele Canelli and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Maria Paola Tramonti FantozziDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Antonino CrivelloInstitute of Information Science and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy, Via Giuseppe Moruzzi, 1, Pisa, 56127, Italy.
Davide La RosaInstitute of Information Science and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy, Via Giuseppe Moruzzi, 1, Pisa, 56127, Italy.
Mario MilazzoDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Serena DantiDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Vincenzo De CiccoDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Paolo OrsiniDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Diego ManzoniDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Francesco LazzeriniDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Cares, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Rachele CanelliDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Cares, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Giacomo FiacchiniDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Cares, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Luca BruschiniDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Cares, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AudiometryAuditory detectionOrienting reflexPupil dilatationPupillometry

Identifiers

PMID40084033
PMCPMC11904525

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.