Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41322349›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Cross-modal neuroplasticity in partial hearing loss: a mini-review.

Patricia V Aguiar, Jennifer Preman, Brandon T Paul

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Patricia V AguiarDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jennifer PremanDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Brandon T PaulDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory loss induces adaptive neural changes in the remaining non-deprived senses, known as cross-modal plasticity. Recent proposals of cross-modal plasticity suggest that it is a top-down, dynamic phenomenon that can occur through the lifespan and is initiated whether sensory loss is total (as in blindness or deafness) or more subtle (mild-to-moderate partial sensory loss). However, it is unclear whether adaptive plasticity differs between total and partial loss, because there is less research on the latter condition. Here we reviewed neuroimaging research on cross-modal plasticity in adult humans with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and compared it to three claims derived from deafness research. First, cross-modal plasticity is thought to involve both intra-modal strengthening of remaining senses and cross-modal recruitment of deprived cortical areas, but we were unable to identify strong evidence of cross-modal recruitment in adults with partial hearing loss. Second, cross-modal plasticity is believed to arise through top-down connections and implicates cognitive function, which agreed with our findings. Third, cross-modal plasticity is believed to enhance perception in the non-deprived senses. No study in our review supported this claim, but it is possible that cross-modal plasticity in partial hearing loss results in stronger modulation of auditory function by intact senses. In addition, many study outcomes in humans with partial loss were inconsistent. Overall, it may be premature to conclude that cross-modal plasticity operates the same for partial and total forms of sensory loss in humans, and we provide several recommendations for testing these claims in future research.

Indexed as

cross-modal plasticityEEGfMRIfNIRShearing lossneuroimagingvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID41322349
PMCPMC12660229

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.