ArticleEar and hearing
An Electrophysiological Version of the Audible Contrast Threshold Test.
Article in Ear and hearing. 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.
- Beyond speech perception: contemporary landscape of language agnostic hearing assessment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe audible contrast threshold (ACT) test is a behavioral spectro-temporal modulation detection test used to approximate speech-in-noise performance. This study focused on the clinical reliability and validity of an electrophysiological version of the ACT test (E-ACT). The primary objectives were to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the E-ACT and explore its relationship with the behavioral ACT test and aided speech-in-noise performance. Since the E-ACT employs stimuli based on a tonal carrier while the ACT uses a noise carrier, a secondary objective was to investigate the behavioral correlation between performance with noise-carrier and tonal-carrier stimuli. We hypothesized that there would be a significant relationship between the E-ACT and the behavioral ACT.
designThe E-ACT utilizes the auditory change complex, a cortical response to suprathreshold sound changes, elicited here by changes between spectro-temporal modulated targets and non-modulated references. The 4-Hz temporal and two-cycles/octave spectral modulation rates were identical to those used in the ACT test. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the E-ACT: The first experiment (experiment A) was conducted in a university setting with 18 adult participants. The second experiment (experiment B) was conducted in a hospital setting with 47 hearing-impaired adult participants. Both experiments included ACT and E-ACT measurements. In addition, experiment A incorporated behavioral tonal-ACT measurements, while experiment B included assessments of speech-in-noise performance. Electroencephalogram data were analyzed using the objective Fmpi (individualized multi-point F test) detector to determine the presence of responses.
resultsThe E-ACT test and retest were significantly correlated ( R2 = 0.62, p < 0.001). The E-ACT values correlated significantly with ACT values ( R2 = 0.18, p < 0.001), with most participants showing better thresholds for ACT compared with E-ACT. However, unexpectedly, some participants had worse ACT values compared with E-ACT. E-ACT values also correlated with aided speech-in-noise performance ( R2 = 0.09, p = 0.04). Last, ACT and tonal-ACT values were significantly correlated ( R2 = 0.53, p < 0.001), with thresholds obtained using tonal-ACT averaging 1.6 dB lower than those obtained using ACT.
conclusionsThe E-ACT provides clinicians with an objective discrimination measure that can be utilized with patients unable to participate in behavioral tests. Both E-ACT and ACT offer insights into suprathreshold hearing, which can supplement the audiogram.
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.