Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28752811›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.

Baljeet Rana, Jörg M Buchholz, Catherine Morgan, Mridula Sharma, Tobias Weller, Shivali Appaiah Konganda, Kyoko Shirai, Atsushi Kawano

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Lexical effects on talker discrimination in adult cochlear implant usersa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Effect of interaural electrode insertion depth difference and independent band selection on sentence recognition in noise and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening.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 · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Baljeet Rana1 National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jörg M Buchholz1 National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Catherine Morgan3 Cochlear Asia pacific, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mridula Sharma2 Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tobias Weller1 National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Shivali Appaiah Konganda2 Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kyoko Shirai4 Department of Otolaryngology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi Kawano4 Department of Otolaryngology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binaural hearing helps normal-hearing listeners localize sound sources and understand speech in noise. However, it is not fully understood how far this is the case for bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. To determine the potential benefits of bilateral over unilateral CIs, speech comprehension thresholds (SCTs) were measured in seven Japanese bilateral CI recipients using Helen test sentences (translated into Japanese) in a two-talker speech interferer presented from the front (co-located with the target speech), ipsilateral to the first-implanted ear (at +90° or -90°), and spatially symmetric at ±90°. Spatial release from masking was calculated as the difference between co-located and spatially separated SCTs. Localization was assessed in the horizontal plane by presenting either male or female speech or both simultaneously. All measurements were performed bilaterally and unilaterally (with the first implanted ear) inside a loudspeaker array. Both SCTs and spatial release from masking were improved with bilateral CIs, demonstrating mean bilateral benefits of 7.5 dB in spatially asymmetric and 3 dB in spatially symmetric speech mixture. Localization performance varied strongly between subjects but was clearly improved with bilateral over unilateral CIs with the mean localization error reduced by 27°. Surprisingly, adding a second talker had only a negligible effect on localization.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsPerceptual MaskingSound LocalizationSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAudiometry, SpeechAuditory ThresholdCochlear ImplantationComprehensionCuesElectric StimulationFemaleHearingHearing Disordersbetter-ear glimpsingbilateral benefitcochlear implantslocalizationspatial release from masking

Identifiers

PMID28752811
PMCPMC5536376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.