Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29780970›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2017

Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants.

David B Pisoni, William G Kronenberger, Michael S Harris, Aaron C Moberly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nonword Repetition Assessing Auditory and Cognitive Abilities in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Capturing the Heterogeneity of Word Learners by Analyzing Persons.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  19. 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 · 2024
    Article
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

David B PisoniDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46205, USA.
William G KronenbergerDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46205, USA.
Michael S HarrisDepartment of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA.
Aaron C MoberlyDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, 43212, USA.

Funding

SPEECH PERCEPTION &SPOKEN WORD RECOGNITIONR01DC000111 · NIDCD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PISONI, DAVID B · 1989 to 2015
$8.1M
Executive Functioning and Speech-Language Skills in Cochlear Implant UsersR01DC015257 · NIDCD · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI KRONENBERGER, WILLIAM G, PISONI, DAVID B · 2017 to 2021
$3.1M
Family Processes in Developmental Outcomes of Pediatric Hearing LossR01DC014956 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HOLT, RACHAEL FRUSH, PISONI, DAVID B · 2016 to 2020
$3.1M
Neurocognitive Processes in Deaf Children with Cochlear ImplantsR01DC009581 · NIDCD · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI PISONI, DAVID B · 2009 to 2013
$3.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000111NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009581NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014956NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015257
6 · The paper itself

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

Cochlear implantsHearing lossOutcomes following implantation

Identifiers

PMID29780970
PMCPMC5956139

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.