ArticleTrends in hearing2016
Forward-Masked Frequency Selectivity Improvements in Simulated and Actual Cochlear Implant Users Using a Preprocessing Algorithm.
Article in Trends in hearing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Word Recognition and Frequency Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Simulation: Effect of Channel Interaction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Olivocochlear Efferents in Animals and Humans: From Anatomy to Clinical Relevance.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Review
- Sound Localization in Real-Time Vocoded Cochlear-Implant Simulations With Normal-Hearing Listeners.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frequency selectivity can be quantified using masking paradigms, such as psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs). Normal-hearing (NH) listeners show sharp PTCs that are level- and frequency-dependent, whereas frequency selectivity is strongly reduced in cochlear implant (CI) users. This study aims at (a) assessing individual shapes of PTCs in CI users, (b) comparing these shapes to those of simulated CI listeners (NH listeners hearing through a CI simulation), and (c) increasing the sharpness of PTCs using a biologically inspired dynamic compression algorithm, BioAid, which has been shown to sharpen the PTC shape in hearing-impaired listeners. A three-alternative-forced-choice forward-masking technique was used to assess PTCs in 8 CI users (with their own speech processor) and 11 NH listeners (with and without listening through a vocoder to simulate electric hearing). CI users showed flat PTCs with large interindividual variability in shape, whereas simulated CI listeners had PTCs of the same average flatness, but more homogeneous shapes across listeners. The algorithm BioAid was used to process the stimuli before entering the CI users' speech processor or the vocoder simulation. This algorithm was able to partially restore frequency selectivity in both groups, particularly in seven out of eight CI users, meaning significantly sharper PTCs than in the unprocessed condition. The results indicate that algorithms can improve the large-scale sharpness of frequency selectivity in some CI users. This finding may be useful for the design of sound coding strategies particularly for situations in which high frequency selectivity is desired, such as for music perception.
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.