Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29351279›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Corrective binaural processing for bilateral cochlear implant patients.

Christopher A Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Evaluation of hearing and speech rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in children with Waardenburg syndrome].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Acoustic factors affecting interaural level differences for cochlear-implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

1 author.

Christopher A BrownDepartment of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15217, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7550-3014

Funding

Understanding the Benefits of Electric-acoustic StimulationR01DC008329 · NIDCD · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI BROWN, CHRISTOPHER A, DORMAN, MICHAEL F. · 2008 to 2015
$2.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008329NIH HHS R01DC008329
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although bilateral cochlear implant users receive input to both ears, they nonetheless have relatively poor localization abilities in the horizontal plane. This is likely because of the two binaural cues, they have good sensitivity to interaural differences of level (inter-aural level differences, or ILDs), but not those of time (inter-aural time differences; ITDs). Here, localization performance is assessed in six bilateral cochlear implant patients when instantaneous ITDs are measured and converted to ILDs, a strategy that results in larger-than-typical ILDs. The added ILDs are corrective, in that they are derived from individual listener performance across both frequency and azimuth, so that they are small where a listener performs well, and increase as performance deviates from ideal. Results show significantly improved localization performance as a result of this strategy, with two of the six listeners achieving levels of performance typically observed in NH listeners.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionCochlear ImplantsAgedAuditory ThresholdFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29351279
PMCPMC5774684

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.