ReviewAudiology research2025
Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) in Objective Audiometry: A Scoping Review and Clinical Perspectives.
Review in Audiology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generalized self-calibrating probe approach for CW tissue oximetry.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Correction: Mimra et al. Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) in Objective Audiometry: A Scoping Review and Clinical Perspectives.Audiology research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective assessment of hearing in non-cooperative populations, such as neonates, remains a challenge. While Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA) is the gold standard, its sensitivity to motion artifacts necessitates alternatives.
objectiveThis scoping review maps the current literature on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) as a supplementary method in objective audiometry. DATA SYNTHESIS: fNIRS shows potential to detect cortical hemodynamic responses, particularly to complex stimuli like speech, which BERA cannot fully assess. Key advantages include motion tolerance and suitability for pediatric and cochlear implant populations. However, the literature reveals significant heterogeneity in stimulation protocols and data processing. Evidence suggests fNIRS is better suited for assessing higher-level auditory processing rather than replacing BERA for threshold estimation.
conclusionsfNIRS is a promising complementary tool. However, due to the lack of standardized protocols and large-scale validation studies, it is not yet a direct clinical replacement for BERA. Future work must focus on protocol standardization and establishing robust normative data.
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.