Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623771›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Interaural Time-Difference Discrimination as a Measure of Place of Stimulation for Cochlear-Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.

Joshua G W Bernstein, Olga A Stakhovskaya, Gerald I Schuchman, Kenneth K Jensen, Matthew J Goupell

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua G W Bernstein1 National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Olga A Stakhovskaya1 National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gerald I Schuchman1 National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kenneth K Jensen1 National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Matthew J Goupell2 Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

Optimizing Bilateral and Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implants for Functioning in Complex Auditory EnvironmentsR01DC015798 · NIDCD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI BERNSTEIN, JOSHUA GARY, GOUPELL, MATTHEW J. · 2017 to 2021
$2.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current clinical practice in programming a cochlear implant (CI) for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD) is to maximize the transmission of speech information via the implant, with the implicit assumption that this will also result in improved spatial-hearing abilities. However, binaural sensitivity is reduced by interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch, a likely occurrence with a standard CI frequency-to-electrode allocation table (FAT). As a step toward reducing interaural mismatch, this study investigated whether a test of interaural-time-difference (ITD) discrimination could be used to estimate the acoustic frequency yielding the best place match for a given CI electrode. ITD-discrimination performance was measured by presenting 300-ms bursts of 100-pulses-per-second electrical pulse trains to a single CI electrode and band-limited pulse trains with variable carrier frequencies to the acoustic ear. Listeners discriminated between two reference intervals (four bursts each with constant ITD) and a moving target interval (four bursts with variable ITD). For 17 out of the 26 electrodes tested across eight listeners, the function describing the relationship between ITD-discrimination performance and carrier frequency had a discernable peak where listeners achieved 70% to 100% performance. On average, this peak occurred 1.15 octaves above the CI manufacturer's default FAT. ITD discrimination shows promise as a method of estimating the cochlear place of stimulation for a given electrode, thereby providing information to optimize the FAT for SSD-CI listeners.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsDeafnessSound LocalizationAcoustic StimulationAdultCochlear ImplantationHearingHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpeech Perceptionbimodalbinaural hearinghearing losssound localizationspatial hearingunilateral

Identifiers

PMID29623771
PMCPMC5894906
OpenAlexW2795552135

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.