Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28970567›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears.

Qian-Jie Fu, John J Galvin, Xiaosong Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Speech Recognition and Subjective Hearing Abilities for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users With Unilateral Hearing Loss.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Enhancement of Consonant Recognition in Bimodal and Normal Hearing Listeners.The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2019
    Article
  19. Hybrid Music Perception Outcomes: Implications for Melody and Timbre Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2019
    Article
  20. 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.

Qian-Jie FuDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 90095, USA. qfu@mednet.ucla.edu.
John J GalvinDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 90095, USA.
Xiaosong WangDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 90095, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology allow for acoustic and electric hearing to be combined within the same ear (electric-acoustic stimulation, or EAS) and/or across ears (bimodal listening). Integration efficiency (IE; the ratio between observed and predicted performance for acoustic-electric hearing) can be used to estimate how well acoustic and electric hearing are combined. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors that affect IE in EAS and bimodal listening. Vowel recognition was measured in normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal, EAS, and bimodal listening. The input/output frequency range for acoustic hearing was 0.1-0.6 kHz. For CI simulations, the output frequency range was 1.2-8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth and the input frequency range was varied to provide increasing amounts of speech information and tonotopic mismatch. Performance was best when acoustic and electric hearing was combined in the same ear. IE was significantly better for EAS than for bimodal listening; IE was sensitive to tonotopic mismatch for EAS, but not for bimodal listening. These simulation results suggest acoustic and electric hearing may be more effectively and efficiently combined within rather than across ears, and that tonotopic mismatch should be minimized to maximize the benefit of acoustic-electric hearing, especially for EAS.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAudiometry, SpeechAuditory ThresholdCochlear ImplantsCorrection of Hearing ImpairmentElectric StimulationFemaleHealthy VolunteersHearingHearing LossHearing TestsHumansMiddle AgedNoise

Identifiers

PMID28970567
PMCPMC5624923
OpenAlexW2757409154

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.