You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Hidden Hearing Loss? No Effect of Common Recreational Noise Exposure on Cochlear Nerve Response Amplitude in Humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2017.00465 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah K. Grinn, Kathryn B. Wiseman, Jason A. Baker, Colleen G. Le Prell |
| Abstract |
This study tested hypothesized relationships between noise exposure and auditory deficits. Both retrospective assessment of potential associations between noise exposure history and performance on an audiologic test battery and prospective assessment of potential changes in performance after new recreational noise exposure were completed. Methods: 32 participants (13M, 19F) with normal hearing (25-dB HL or better, 0.25-8 kHz) were asked to participate in 3 pre- and post-exposure sessions including: otoscopy, tympanometry, distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) (f2 frequencies 1-8 kHz), pure-tone audiometry (0.25-8 kHz), Words-in-Noise (WIN) test, and electrocochleography (eCochG) measurements at 70, 80, and 90-dB nHL (click and 2-4 kHz tone-bursts). The first session was used to collect baseline data, the second session was collected the day after a loud recreational event, and the third session was collected 1-week later. Of the 32 participants, 26 completed all 3 sessions. Results: The retrospective analysis did not reveal statistically significant relationships between noise exposure history and any auditory deficits. The day after new exposure, there was a statistically significant correlation between noise "dose" and WIN performance overall, and within the 4-dB signal-to-babble ratio. In contrast, there were no statistically significant correlations between noise dose and changes in threshold, DPOAE amplitude, or AP amplitude the day after new noise exposure. Additional analyses revealed a statistically significant relationship between TTS and DPOAE amplitude at 6 kHz, with temporarily decreased DPOAE amplitude observed with increasing TTS. Conclusions: There was no evidence of auditory deficits as a function of previous noise exposure history, and no permanent changes in audiometric, electrophysiologic, or functional measures after new recreational noise exposure. There were very few participants with TTS the day after exposure - a test time selected to be consistent with previous animal studies. The largest observed TTS was approximately 20-dB. The observed pattern of small TTS suggests little risk of synaptopathy from common recreational noise exposure, and that we should not expect to observe changes in evoked potentials for this reason. No such changes were observed in this study. These data do not support suggestions that common, recreational noise exposure is likely to result in "hidden hearing loss". |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Denmark | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 136 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 29 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Engineering | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 45 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#429,115
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#190
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,095
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.