Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Individual Differences Reveal Correlates of Hidden Hearing Deficits

Open access
Bharadwaj, Hari M., Masud, Salwa, Mehraei, Golbarg, Verhulst, Sarah, Shinn-Cunningham, Barbara G.·2015·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Clinical audiometry has long focused on determining the detection thresholds for pure tones, which depend on intact cochlear mechanics and hair cell function. Yet many listeners with normal hearing thresholds complain of communication difficulties, and the causes for such problems are not well understood. Here, we explore whether normal-hearing listeners exhibit such suprathreshold deficits, affecting the fidelity with which subcortical areas encode the temporal structure of clearly audible sound. Using an array of measures, we evaluated a cohort of young adults with thresholds in the normal range to assess both cochlear mechanical function and temporal coding of suprathreshold sounds. Listeners differed widely in both electrophysiological and behavioral measures of temporal coding fidelity. These measures correlated significantly with each other. Conversely, these differences were unrelated to the modest variation in otoacoustic emissions, cochlear tuning, or the residual differences in hearing threshold present in our cohort. Electroencephalography revealed that listeners with poor subcortical encoding had poor cortical sensitivity to changes in interaural time differences, which are critical for localizing sound sources and analyzing complex scenes. These listeners also performed poorly when asked to direct selective attention to one of two competing speech streams, a task that mimics the challenges of many everyday listening environments. Together with previous animal and computational models, our results suggest that hidden hearing deficits, likely originating at the level of the cochlear nerve, are part of “normal hearing.”

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3915-14.2015

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Metadata

Authors
Bharadwaj, H. M., Masud, S., Mehraei, G., Verhulst, S., & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2015-02-04
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
2161-2172
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2016785002
Cited by
314
References
61
FWCI
18.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual Differences Reveal Correlates of Hidden Hearing Deficits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.3915-14.2015
The paper
Bharadwaj, H. M., Masud, S., Mehraei, G., Verhulst, S., & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2015). Individual Differences Reveal Correlates of Hidden Hearing Deficits. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3915-14.2015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.