↓ Skip to main content

Effect of conductive hearing loss on central auditory function

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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.
Title
Effect of conductive hearing loss on central auditory function
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.02.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arash Bayat, Mohammad Farhadi, Hesam Emamdjomeh, Nader Saki, Golshan Mirmomeni, Fakher Rahim

Abstract

It has been demonstrated that long-term Conductive Hearing Loss (CHL) may influence the precise detection of the temporal features of acoustic signals or Auditory Temporal Processing (ATP). It can be argued that ATP may be the underlying component of many central auditory processing capabilities such as speech comprehension or sound localization. Little is known about the consequences of CHL on temporal aspects of central auditory processing. This study was designed to assess auditory temporal processing ability in individuals with chronic CHL. During this analytical cross-sectional study, 52 patients with mild to moderate chronic CHL and 52 normal-hearing listeners (control), aged between 18 and 45 year-old, were recruited. In order to evaluate auditory temporal processing, the Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test was used. The results obtained for each ear were analyzed based on the gap perception threshold and the percentage of correct responses. The average of GIN thresholds was significantly smaller for the control group than for the CHL group for both ears (right: p=0.004; left: p<0.001). Individuals with CHL had significantly lower correct responses than individuals with normal hearing for both sides (p<0.001). No correlation was found between GIN performance and degree of hearing loss in either group (p>0.05). The results suggest reduced auditory temporal processing ability in adults with CHL compared to normal hearing subjects. Therefore, developing a clinical protocol to evaluate auditory temporal processing in this population is recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Unspecified 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2019.
All research outputs
#17,806,995
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#399
of 636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,803
of 310,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.