ReviewTrends in hearing2015
Procedural Factors That Affect Psychophysical Measures of Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Users.
Review in Trends in hearing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal Pitch Perception of Multi-Channel Stimuli by Cochlear-Implant Users.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Article
- Using Interleaved Stimulation and EEG to Measure Temporal Smoothing and Growth of the Sustained Neural Response to Cochlear-Implant Stimulation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Article
- Electrical Field Interactions during Adjacent Electrode Stimulations: eABR Evaluation in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Tonotopic Selectivity in Cats and Humans: Electrophysiology and Psychophysics.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021Article
- Using Spectral Blurring to Assess Effects of Channel Interaction on Speech-in-Noise Perception with Cochlear Implants.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2020Article
- The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2020Article
- Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.Hearing research · 2020Article
- Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2018Article
- Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implants: Effects of Asymmetric Waveforms and Development of a Single-Point Measure.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2017Article
- Symmetric Electrode Spanning Narrows the Excitation Patterns of Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2016Article
- Effects of Monaural Temporal Electrode Asynchrony and Channel Interactions in Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear-Implant Stimulation.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Behavioral measures of spatial selectivity in cochlear implants are important both for guiding the programing of individual users' implants and for the evaluation of different stimulation methods. However, the methods used are subject to a number of confounding factors that can contaminate estimates of spatial selectivity. These factors include off-site listening, charge interactions between masker and probe pulses in interleaved masking paradigms, and confusion effects in forward masking. We review the effects of these confounds and discuss methods for minimizing them. We describe one such method in which the level of a 125-pps masker is adjusted so as to mask a 125-pps probe, and where the masker and probe pulses are temporally interleaved. Five experiments describe the method and evaluate the potential roles of the different potential confounding factors. No evidence was obtained for off-site listening of the type observed in acoustic hearing. The choice of the masking paradigm was shown to alter the measured spatial selectivity. For short gaps between masker and probe pulses, both facilitation and refractory mechanisms had an effect on masking; this finding should inform the choice of stimulation rate in interleaved masking experiments. No evidence for confusion effects in forward masking was revealed. It is concluded that the proposed method avoids many potential confounds but that the choice of method should depend on the research question under investigation.
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.