Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800859›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Comparing methods for deriving the auditory brainstem response to continuous speech in human listeners.

Tong Shan, Ross K Maddox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Tong ShanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Ross K MaddoxDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2668-0238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several methods have recently been developed to derive the auditory brainstem response (ABR) from continuous natural speech, facilitating investigation into subcortical encoding of speech. These tools rely on deconvolution to compute the temporal response function (TRF), which models the subcortical auditory pathway as a linear system, where a nonlinearly processed stimulus is taken as the input (i.e., regressor), the electroencephalogram (EEG) data as the output, and the ABR as the impulse response deconvolved from the recorded EEG and the regressor. In this study, we analyzed EEG recordings from subjects listening to both unaltered natural speech and synthesized "peaky speech." We compared the derived ABR TRFs using three regressors: the half-wave rectified stimulus (HWR) fromMaddox and Lee (2018), the glottal pulse train (GP) fromPolonenko and Maddox (2021), and the auditory nerve modeled response (ANM;Zilany et al. (2014); (2009)) used inShan et al. (2024). Our evaluation focused on the signal-to-noise ratio, prediction accuracy, efficiency, and practicality of applying each regressor in both unaltered and peaky speech. The results indicate that the ANM regressor with peaky speech provides the best performance, with the ANM for unaltered speech and the GP regressor for peaky speech close behind, whereas the HWR regressor demonstrated relatively poorer performance. There are, thus, multiple stimulus and analysis tools that can provide high-quality subcortical TRFs, with the choices for which to use dictated by experimental needs. The findings in this study will guide future research and clinical use in selecting the most appropriate paradigm for ABR derivation from continuous, naturalistic speech.

Indexed as

auditory brainstem responseEEGnatural stimulispeechtemporal response function

Identifiers

PMID40800859
PMCPMC12319856

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.