ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2025
On the Sharpness of Auditory Filters: Considering Subclinical Deficits Reveals Sharper Otoacoustic Emission Estimates of Frequency Selectivity in Humans.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tinnitus and occupational noise exposure among informal generator technicians in Nigeria: A pilot cohort study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
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
purposeFrequency selectivity plays a crucial role in auditory perception, yet its precise characterization in humans remains debated. Most behavioral or physiologic estimates of frequency selectivity in humans have historically been obtained from individuals with clinically normal audiograms. However, emerging evidence suggests that even within this population, subclinical cochlear deficits may be prevalent, potentially skewing prior tuning estimates toward broader bandwidths. Here, we tested the hypothesis that human cochlear tuning is sharper when subclinical deficits, specifically hearing sensitivity above 8000 Hz, are considered.
methodsUsing stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission (SFOAE) delays, we obtained physiological estimates of cochlear tuning sharpness (Q
resultsOur findings demonstrate that controlling for subclinical deficits results in significantly sharper (higher) tuning estimates at 2000 and 2828 Hz among the tested frequencies. Additionally, applying a normative criterion for extended high-frequency hearing, we observed narrower equivalent rectangular bandwidths-approximately two times sharper-in individuals with better extended high-frequency sensitivity. The Q
conclusionThese findings highlight the influence of subclinical hearing deficits on cochlear tuning estimates and suggest that humans with optimal cochlear health may possess even sharper biological frequency selectivity than previously reported.
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.