Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056017›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

When Hearing Is Tricky: Speech Processing Strategies in Prelingually Deafened Children and Adolescents with Cochlear Implants Having Good and Poor Speech Performance.

Magdalene Ortmann, Pienie Zwitserlood, Arne Knief, Johanna Baare, Stephanie Brinkheetker, Antoinette Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen, Christian Dobel

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Auditory cortical processing in cochlear-implanted children with different language outcomes.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
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Magdalene OrtmannInstitute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Pienie ZwitserloodDepartment of Psychology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Arne KniefDepartment of Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Johanna BaareInstitute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Stephanie BrinkheetkerDepartment of Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Antoinette Am Zehnhoff-DinnesenDepartment of Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.
Christian DobelInstitute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implants provide individuals who are deaf with access to speech. Although substantial advancements have been made by novel technologies, there still is high variability in language development during childhood, depending on adaptation and neural plasticity. These factors have often been investigated in the auditory domain, with the mismatch negativity as an index for sensory and phonological processing. Several studies have demonstrated that the MMN is an electrophysiological correlate for hearing improvement with cochlear implants. In this study, two groups of cochlear implant users, both with very good basic hearing abilities but with non-overlapping speech performance (very good or very poor speech performance), were matched according to device experience and age at implantation. We tested the perception of phonemes in the context of specific other phonemes from which they were very hard to discriminate (e.g., the vowels in /bu/ vs. /bo/). The most difficult pair was individually determined for each participant. Using behavioral measures, both cochlear implants groups performed worse than matched controls, and the good performers performed better than the poor performers. Cochlear implant groups and controls did not differ during time intervals typically used for the mismatch negativity, but earlier: source analyses revealed increased activity in the region of the right supramarginal gyrus (220-260 ms) in good performers. Poor performers showed increased activity in the left occipital cortex (220-290 ms), which may be an index for cross-modal perception. The time course and the neural generators differ from data from our earlier studies, in which the same phonemes were assessed in an easy-to-discriminate context. The results demonstrate that the groups used different language processing strategies, depending on the success of language development and the particular language context. Overall, our data emphasize the role of neural plasticity and use of adaptive strategies for successful language development with cochlear implants.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsChild, PreschoolDeafnessFemaleHearing TestsHumansMaleSpeechSpeech Perception

Identifiers

PMID28056017
PMCPMC5215792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.