ArticleTrends in hearing2015
Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cochlear-implant simulated spectral degradation attenuates emotional responses to environmental sounds.International journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception in Noise in Bimodal/Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with and without Residual Hearing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Importance of ipsilateral residual hearing for spatial hearing by bimodal cochlear implant users.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A convolutional neural network-based framework for analysis and assessment of non-linguistic sound classification and enhancement for normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Modelling speech reception thresholds and their improvements due to spatial noise reduction algorithms in bimodal cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2022Article
- Benefits of Binaural Integration in Cochlear Implant Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and Residual Hearing in the Implanted Ear.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020Article
- Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Forward-Masked Frequency Selectivity Improvements in Simulated and Actual Cochlear Implant Users Using a Preprocessing Algorithm.Trends in hearing · 2016Article
- Advancing Binaural Cochlear Implant Technology.Trends in hearing · 2015Review
- Measuring and Modeling Cue Dependent Spatial Release from Masking in the Presence of Typical Delays in the Treatment of Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.