Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29529006›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

A Dynamically Focusing Cochlear Implant Strategy Can Improve Vowel Identification in Noise.

Julie G Arenberg, Wendy S Parkinson, Leonid Litvak, Chen Chen, Heather A Kreft, Andrew J Oxenham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Julie G ArenbergDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Wendy S ParkinsonDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Leonid LitvakAdvanced Bionics Corporation, Valencia, California, USA.
Chen ChenAdvanced Bionics Corporation, Valencia, California, USA.
Heather A KreftDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Andrew J OxenhamDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Perceptual implications of cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfacesR01DC012142 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JULIE G Arenberg · 2012 to 2026
$6.5M
Supplement for temporal bone histological tissue scanning equipmentR01DC012262 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OXENHAM, ANDREW J. · 2013 to 2023
$4.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012142NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe standard, monopolar (MP) electrode configuration used in commercially available cochlear implants (CI) creates a broad electrical field, which can lead to unwanted channel interactions. Use of more focused configurations, such as tripolar and phased array, has led to mixed results for improving speech understanding. The purpose of the present study was to assess the efficacy of a physiologically inspired configuration called dynamic focusing, using focused tripolar stimulation at low levels and less focused stimulation at high levels. Dynamic focusing may better mimic cochlear excitation patterns in normal acoustic hearing, while reducing the current levels necessary to achieve sufficient loudness at high levels.

designTwenty postlingually deafened adult CI users participated in the study. Speech perception was assessed in quiet and in a four-talker babble background noise. Speech stimuli were closed-set spondees in noise, and medial vowels at 50 and 60 dB SPL in quiet and in noise. The signal to noise ratio was adjusted individually such that performance was between 40 and 60% correct with the MP strategy. Subjects were fitted with three experimental strategies matched for pulse duration, pulse rate, filter settings, and loudness on a channel-by-channel basis. The strategies included 14 channels programmed in MP, fixed partial tripolar (σ = 0.8), and dynamic partial tripolar (σ at 0.8 at threshold and 0.5 at the most comfortable level). Fifteen minutes of listening experience was provided with each strategy before testing. Sound quality ratings were also obtained.

resultsSpeech perception performance for vowel identification in quiet at 50 and 60 dB SPL and for spondees in noise was similar for the three tested strategies. However, performance on vowel identification in noise was significantly better for listeners using the dynamic focusing strategy. Sound quality ratings were similar for the three strategies. Some subjects obtained more benefit than others, with some individual differences explained by the relation between loudness growth and the rate of change from focused to broader stimulation.

conclusionsThese initial results suggest that further exploration of dynamic focusing is warranted. Specifically, optimizing such strategies on an individual basis may lead to improvements in speech perception for more adult listeners and improve how CIs are tailored. Some listeners may also need a longer period of time to acclimate to a new program.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsNoiseSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeafnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignSpeech Acoustics

Identifiers

PMID29529006
PMCPMC6129442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.