Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27787393›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

The Relationship Between Intensity Coding and Binaural Sensitivity in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Ann E Todd, Matthew J Goupell, Ruth Y Litovsky

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of a sequential cochlear implant of minimum comfort, impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential values of the initial cochlear implant.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Ann E Todd1Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; and 2Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Matthew J Goupell
Ruth Y Litovsky

Funding

WISCONSIN CENTER ON MENTAL RETARDATION: CORE SUPPORTP30HD003352 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DAVIDSON, RICHARD J · 1985 to 2015
$25.2M
Directional Hearing in Complex Auditory EnvironmentsR01DC003083 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI LITOVSKY, RUTH Y · 2004 to 2020
$7.4M
Binaural unmasking of tones and speech in bilateral cochlear implanteesR01DC014948 · NIDCD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI GOUPELL, MATTHEW J. · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
Binaural Unmasking in Children with Cochlear ImplantsF31DC013238 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI TODD, ANN E · 2013 to 2014
$51k
NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD003352NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC013238NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003083NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014948
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMany bilateral cochlear implant users show sensitivity to binaural information when stimulation is provided using a pair of synchronized electrodes. However, there is large variability in binaural sensitivity between and within participants across stimulation sites in the cochlea. It was hypothesized that within-participant variability in binaural sensitivity is in part affected by limitations and characteristics of the auditory periphery which may be reflected by monaural hearing performance. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between monaural and binaural hearing performance within participants with bilateral cochlear implants.

designBinaural measures included dichotic signal detection and interaural time difference discrimination thresholds. Diotic signal detection thresholds were also measured. Monaural measures included dynamic range and amplitude modulation detection. In addition, loudness growth was compared between ears. Measures were made at three stimulation sites per listener.

resultsGreater binaural sensitivity was found with larger dynamic ranges. Poorer interaural time difference discrimination was found with larger difference between comfortable levels of the two ears. In addition, poorer diotic signal detection thresholds were found with larger differences between the dynamic ranges of the two ears. No relationship was found between amplitude modulation detection thresholds or symmetry of loudness growth and the binaural measures.

conclusionsThe results suggest that some of the variability in binaural hearing performance within listeners across stimulation sites can be explained by factors nonspecific to binaural processing. The results are consistent with the idea that dynamic range and comfortable levels relate to peripheral neural survival and the width of the excitation pattern which could affect the fidelity with which central binaural nuclei process bilateral inputs.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationAgedAged, 80 and overCochlear ImplantsDeafnessDichotic Listening TestsFemaleHearing Loss, BilateralHumansMaleMiddle AgedTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27787393
PMCPMC5322240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.