ArticleHearing research2026
Comparing physiological signatures of synaptopathic noise exposure and carboplatin-induced inner-hair-cell dysfunction in chinchillas.
Article in Hearing research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aging and noise over-exposure lead to complex mixtures of cochlear degradation that impair the structure and function of outer hair cells (OHCs), inner hair cells (IHCs), and the cochlear nerve. However, IHC damage and cochlear synaptopathy (CS) remain pathologies "hidden" from the audiogram. This study aimed to compare and contrast the physiological signatures of these two popular and distinct exposure paradigms using promising non-invasive assays: Envelope Following Responses (EFRs), Auditory Brainstem Response (ABRs), Wideband Middle-Ear Muscle Reflexes (WB-MEMRs), and Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs). We utilized chinchilla models of carboplatin exposure (CA) (N = 4) and temporary threshold shift (TTS) noise-induced CS (N = 4) to compare the physiological signatures of each type of exposure. While both groups showed unchanged ABR thresholds two weeks after exposure, EFRs, ABR Wave 5/1 ratios, and MEMRs showed distinct effects of exposure. CA and TTS exposures showed differences in the pattern and degree of decreased EFR "peakiness" across different stimulus modulation types (e.g., sinusoidal vs. rectangular). Significant elevations in ABR Wave 5/1 ratios were less-pronounced in the TTS-exposed animals. Reduced WB-MEMR amplitudes and increased WB-MEMR thresholds occurred in both groups, although this effect was more pronounced for TTS. Opposite trends in DPOAE amplitudes suggest that effects on OHC integrity and auditory efferent physiology may differ between the two exposure types and their induced pathologies. Overall, these results suggest a combination of EFR "peakiness", ABR Wave 5/1 ratio, and WB-MEMR may be useful for profiling IHC dysfunction and CS as potentially distinct forms of hidden hearing loss.
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.