Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18616994›Full record

ArticleHearing research2008

Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Blake S Wilson, Michael F Dorman

Open access · greenAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 262 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
262citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

262 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 846 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric factors.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Pilot Chronic Evaluation of a Slanted Electrode Array as an Auditory Nerve Implant.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

202 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Blake S WilsonDivision of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. blake.wilson@duke.edu
Michael F Dorman
Arizona State University · USDuke University Hospital · US

Funding

COCHLEAR IMPLANT--AUDITORY FUNCTION/SPEECH RECOGNITIONR01DC000654 · NIDCD · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI DORMAN, MICHAEL F. · 1990 to 2009
$2.2M
SPEECH PROCESSORS FOR AUDITORY PROSTHESES-260021002N01DC021002 · NIDCD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE IN · 2002 to 2004
–
NIDCD NIH HHS 5R01DC000654NIDCD NIH HHS N01 DC021002NIDCD NIH HHS N01-DC-2-1002NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this paper are to (i) provide a brief history of cochlear implants; (ii) present a status report on the current state of implant engineering and the levels of speech understanding enabled by that engineering; (iii) describe limitations of current signal processing strategies; and (iv) suggest new directions for research. With current technology the "average" implant patient, when listening to predictable conversations in quiet, is able to communicate with relative ease. However, in an environment typical of a workplace the average patient has a great deal of difficulty. Patients who are "above average" in terms of speech understanding, can achieve 100% correct scores on the most difficult tests of speech understanding in quiet but also have significant difficulty when signals are presented in noise. The major factors in these outcomes appear to be (i) a loss of low-frequency, fine structure information possibly due to the envelope extraction algorithms common to cochlear implant signal processing; (ii) a limitation in the number of effective channels of stimulation due to overlap in electric fields from electrodes; and (iii) central processing deficits, especially for patients with poor speech understanding. Two recent developments, bilateral implants and combined electric and acoustic stimulation, have promise to remediate some of the difficulties experienced by patients in noise and to reinstate low-frequency fine structure information. If other possibilities are realized, e.g., electrodes that emit drugs to inhibit cell death following trauma and to induce the growth of neurites toward electrodes, then the future is very bright indeed.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationBiomedical ResearchCochlear ImplantsElectric StimulationHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansProsthesis DesignSpeech Perception

Identifiers

PMID18616994
PMCPMC3707130
OpenAlexW2023969516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.