ArticleHearing research2025
Associations between physiological indicators of cochlear deafferentation and listening effort in military Veterans with normal audiograms.
Article in Hearing research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct Roles of Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Speech-in-Noise Perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Beyond standard audiometry: Auditory dysfunction and steroid treatment outcomes in young adults following acoustic trauma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Degraded neural coding of temporal fine structure with age predicts effortful listening in multi-talker environments.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear synaptopathy, a type of cochlear deafferentation that impacts the synapses between the inner hair cells and the afferent auditory nerve fibers, is predicted to result in speech perception in noise difficulty. However, this has been difficult to confirm due to mixed findings in human studies of the relationship between speech perception in noise and physiological indicators of deafferentation (auditory brainstem response [ABR] wave I amplitude, envelope following response [EFR] magnitude, and middle ear muscle reflex [MEMR] magnitude). One possible explanation for the mixed findings is that some listeners with cochlear deafferentation can increase their cognitive effort to compensate for the degraded speech signal so that their speech-in-noise performance is relatively unaffected, obscuring the relationship between deafferentation and speech-in-noise scores. In a population at high risk for noise-induced cochlear deafferentation (military Veterans with normal audiograms), this study evaluated the relationship between physiological indicators of deafferentation (ABR, EFR, and MEMR) and listening effort, as indicated by pupil dilation during a speech-in-noise task. Mean reductions in ABR, EFR, and MEMR magnitude were associated with greater task-related pupil dilation, but not with reduced speech-in-noise performance, although only the ABR was statistically significant after accounting for sex and outer hair cell function. This suggests that cochlear deafferentation may result in increased listening effort during speech-in-noise perception, even if performance on the task is not negatively impacted. The observed relationship between EFR magnitude and pupil dilation was non-linear, suggesting that increased listening effort may only occur after a particular threshold level of deafferentation is reached.
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.