Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28223951›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2017

Speechreading in Deaf Adults with Cochlear Implants: Evidence for Perceptual Compensation.

Hannah Pimperton, Amelia Ralph-Lewis, Mairéad MacSweeney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Computerized Speechreading Training for Deaf Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannah PimpertonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London London, UK.
Amelia Ralph-LewisInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London London, UK.
Mairéad MacSweeneyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College LondonLondon, UK; Deafness, Cognition and Language Centre, University College LondonLondon, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has provided evidence for a speechreading advantage in congenitally deaf adults compared to hearing adults. A 'perceptual compensation' account of this finding proposes that prolonged early onset deafness leads to a greater reliance on visual, as opposed to auditory, information when perceiving speech which in turn results in superior visual speech perception skills in deaf adults. In the current study we tested whether previous demonstrations of a speechreading advantage for profoundly congenitally deaf adults with hearing aids, or no amplificiation, were also apparent in adults with the same deafness profile but who have experienced greater access to the auditory elements of speech via a cochlear implant (CI). We also tested the prediction that, in line with the perceptual compensation account, receiving a CI at a later age is associated with superior speechreading skills due to later implanted individuals having experienced greater dependence on visual speech information. We designed a speechreading task in which participants viewed silent videos of 123 single words spoken by a model and were required to indicate which word they thought had been said via a free text response. We compared congenitally deaf adults who had received CIs in childhood or adolescence (

Indexed as

cochlear implantscompensationdeaflipreadingspeechreading

Identifiers

PMID28223951
PMCPMC5294775
OpenAlexW2587010168

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.