ArticlePloS one2015
Central Auditory Processing of Temporal and Spectral-Variance Cues in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Task-dependent effects of nicotine treatment on auditory performance in young-adult and elderly human nonsmokers.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implant (CI) listeners have difficulty understanding speech in complex listening environments. This deficit is thought to be largely due to peripheral encoding problems arising from current spread, which results in wide peripheral filters. In normal hearing (NH) listeners, central processing contributes to segregation of speech from competing sounds. We tested the hypothesis that basic central processing abilities are retained in post-lingually deaf CI listeners, but processing is hampered by degraded input from the periphery. In eight CI listeners, we measured auditory nerve compound action potentials to characterize peripheral filters. Then, we measured psychophysical detection thresholds in the presence of multi-electrode maskers placed either inside (peripheral masking) or outside (central masking) the peripheral filter. This was intended to distinguish peripheral from central contributions to signal detection. Introduction of temporal asynchrony between the signal and masker improved signal detection in both peripheral and central masking conditions for all CI listeners. Randomly varying components of the masker created spectral-variance cues, which seemed to benefit only two out of eight CI listeners. Contrastingly, the spectral-variance cues improved signal detection in all five NH listeners who listened to our CI simulation. Together these results indicate that widened peripheral filters significantly hamper central processing of spectral-variance cues but not of temporal cues in post-lingually deaf CI listeners. As indicated by two CI listeners in our study, however, post-lingually deaf CI listeners may retain some central processing abilities similar to NH listeners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.