Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879243›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2015

Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Lisa S Davidson, Jill B Firszt, Chris Brenner, Jamie H Cadieux

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bimodal Benefit for Music Perception: Effect of Acoustic Bandwidth.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa S DavidsonDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Jill B FirsztDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Chris BrennerDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Jamie H CadieuxSt. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
Washington University in St. Louis · USSt. Louis Children's Hospital · US

Funding

THE EFFECTS OF EARLY ACOUSTIC HEARING FOR PEDIATRIC COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTSR01DC012778 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Lisa Surber Davidson · 2013 to 2026
$6.6M
EFFECTS OF ASYMMETRIC HEARING IN ACOUSTIC LISTENERS AND COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC009010 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI FIRSZT, JILL B · 2008 to 2017
$6.3M
Audibility, Sensory Aids and Cognition as Factors in Children's Speech PerceptionK23DC008294 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIDSON, LISA SURBER · 2007 to 2011
$779k
NIDCD NIH HHS K23 DC008294NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009010NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012778
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA coordinated fitting of a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral hearing aid (HA) for bimodal device use should emphasize balanced audibility and loudness across devices. However, guidelines for allocating frequency information to the CI and HA are not well established for the growing population of bimodal recipients. PURPOSE: The study aim was to compare the effects of three different HA frequency responses, when fitting a CI and an HA for bimodal use, on speech recognition and localization in children/young adults. Specifically, the three frequency responses were wideband, restricted high frequency, and nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC), which were compared with measures of word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, talker discrimination, and sound localization. RESEARCH

designThe HA frequency responses were evaluated using an A B₁ A B₂ test design: wideband frequency response (baseline-A), restricted high-frequency response (experimental-B₁), and NLFC-activated (experimental-B2). All participants were allowed 3-4 weeks between each test session for acclimatization to each new HA setting. Bimodal benefit was determined by comparing the bimodal score to the CI-alone score. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 14 children and young adults (ages 7-21 yr) who were experienced users of bimodal devices. All had been unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus CI24 internal system and used either a Freedom or CP810 speech processor. All received a Phonak Naida IX UP behind-the-ear HA at the beginning of the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Group results for the three bimodal conditions (HA frequency response with wideband, restricted high frequency, and NLFC) on each outcome measure were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Group results using the individual "best bimodal" score were analyzed and confirmed using a resampling procedure. Correlation analyses examined the effects of audibility (aided and unaided hearing) in each bimodal condition for each outcome measure. Individual data were analyzed for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and localization. Individual preference for the three bimodal conditions was also assessed.

resultsGroup data revealed no significant difference between the three bimodal conditions for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. However, group data for the localization measure revealed that both wideband and NLFC resulted in significantly improved bimodal performance. The condition that yielded the "best bimodal" score varied across participants. Because of this individual variability, the "best bimodal" score was chosen for each participant to reassess group data within word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. This method revealed a bimodal benefit for word recognition in quiet after a randomization test was used to confirm significance. The majority of the participants preferred NLFC at the conclusion of the study, although a few preferred a restricted high-frequency response or reported no preference.

conclusionsThese results support consideration of restricted high-frequency and NLFC HA responses in addition to traditional wideband response for bimodal device users.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing AidsProsthesis FittingAdolescentAuditory ThresholdChildFemaleHearing LossHumansLoudness PerceptionMaleSpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25879243
PMCPMC4423567
OpenAlexW2317129976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.