ReviewWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2017
Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants.
Review in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cochlear implantation impact on health service utilisation and social outcomes: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Computer-Based Auditory Training for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Randomized Crossover Study.Trends in hearingTrial
- Long-Term Use of Cochlear Implants in the Older Adult Population.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2026Article
- Avoiding unintended consequences: science of reading policies may harm deaf children.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- Nonword Repetition Assessing Auditory and Cognitive Abilities in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Cochlear Implants and Adult Patient Experiences, Adaptation and Challenges: A Survey.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Threshold-distance functions predict speech recognition with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neural markers of attention processing in pediatric cochlear implant users: an ERP study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neuropsychological Assessments to Explore the Cognitive Impact of Cochlear Implants: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A systematic review of machine learning approaches in cochlear implant outcomes.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Model to Predict Postoperative Speech Recognition Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Development, Validation, and Comparison with Expert Clinical Judgment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prediction of Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implants Using Machine Learning Methods: A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Thermally Drawn Shape and Stiffness Programmable Fibers for Medical Devices.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Visual Cortical Processing in Children with Early Bilateral Cochlear Implants: A VEP Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- P1 and N1 Characteristics in Individuals with Normal Hearing and Hearing Loss, and Cochlear Implant Users: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Capturing the Heterogeneity of Word Learners by Analyzing Persons.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- The relation between cochlear implant programming levels and speech perception performance in post-lingually deafened adults: a data-driven approach.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 · 2024Article
- Decreasing the physical gap in the neural-electrode interface and related concepts to improve cochlear implant performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) often work very well for many children and adults with profound sensorineural (SNHL) hearing loss. Unfortunately, while many CI patients display substantial benefits in recognizing speech and understanding spoken language following cochlear implantation, a large number of patients achieve poor outcomes. Understanding and explaining the reasons for poor outcomes following implantation is a very challenging research problem that has received little attention despite the pressing clinical significance. In this paper, we discuss three challenges for future research on CIs. First, we consider the issue of individual differences and variability in outcomes following implantation. At the present time, we still do not have a complete and satisfactory account of the causal underlying factors that are responsible for the enormous individual differences and variability in outcomes. Second, we discuss issues related to the lack of preimplant predictors of outcomes. Very little prospective research has been carried out on the development of preimplant predictors that can be used to reliably identify CI candidates who may be at high risk for a poor outcome following implantation. Other than conventional demographics and hearing history, there are no prognostic tools available to predict speech recognition outcomes after implantation. Finally, we discuss the third challenge - what to do with a CI-user who has a poor outcome. We suggest that new research efforts need to be devoted to studying this neglected clinical population in greater depth to find out why they are doing poorly with their CI and what novel interventions and treatments can be developed to improve their speech recognition outcomes. Using these three challenges as objectives for future research on CIs, we suggest that the field needs to adopt a new narrative grounded in theory and methods from Cognitive Hearing Science and information processing theory. Without knowing which specific biological and neurocognitive factors are responsible for individual differences or understanding the underlying sensory and neurocognitive basis for variability in performance, it is impossible to select a specific approach to habilitation after a deaf adult or child receives a CI. Deaf adults and children who are performing poorly with their CIs are not a homogeneous group and may differ in many different ways from each other, reflecting the dysfunction of multiple brain systems associated with both congenital and acquired deafness. Hearing loss is not only an ear issue, it is also a brain issue too reflecting close links between perception and action and brain, body and world working together as a functionally integrated information processing system to support robust speech recognition and spoken language processing after implantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.