Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26721918›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing2015

Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.

Ben Williges, Mathias Dietz, Volker Hohmann, Tim Jürgens

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Ben WilligesMedizinische Physik, Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all," and Forschungszentrum Neurosensorik, Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany ben.williges@uni-oldenburg.de.
Mathias DietzMedizinische Physik, Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all," and Forschungszentrum Neurosensorik, Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany.
Volker HohmannMedizinische Physik, Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all," and Forschungszentrum Neurosensorik, Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany.
Tim JürgensMedizinische Physik, Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all," and Forschungszentrum Neurosensorik, Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For normal-hearing listeners, speech intelligibility improves if speech and noise are spatially separated. While this spatial release from masking has already been quantified in normal-hearing listeners in many studies, it is less clear how spatial release from masking changes in cochlear implant listeners with and without access to low-frequency acoustic hearing. Spatial release from masking depends on differences in access to speech cues due to hearing status and hearing device. To investigate the influence of these factors on speech intelligibility, the present study measured speech reception thresholds in spatially separated speech and noise for 10 different listener types. A vocoder was used to simulate cochlear implant processing and low-frequency filtering was used to simulate residual low-frequency hearing. These forms of processing were combined to simulate cochlear implant listening, listening based on low-frequency residual hearing, and combinations thereof. Simulated cochlear implant users with additional low-frequency acoustic hearing showed better speech intelligibility in noise than simulated cochlear implant users without acoustic hearing and had access to more spatial speech cues (e.g., higher binaural squelch). Cochlear implant listener types showed higher spatial release from masking with bilateral access to low-frequency acoustic hearing than without. A binaural speech intelligibility model with normal binaural processing showed overall good agreement with measured speech reception thresholds, spatial release from masking, and spatial speech cues. This indicates that differences in speech cues available to listener types are sufficient to explain the changes of spatial release from masking across these simulated listener types.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsAcoustic StimulationAdultAuditory ThresholdCase-Control StudiesCochlear ImplantationCuesFemaleHumansMaleModels, AnatomicPerceptual MaskingReference ValuesSampling StudiesSound LocalizationSpeech Intelligibilityauditory modelbimodalcochlear implantelectroacoustic stimulationspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID26721918
PMCPMC4771029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.