ArticleEar and hearing
Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.
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 28 papers.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- What to Measure? Development of a Core Outcome Set to Assess Remote Technologies for Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- DNN-Based Noise Reduction Significantly Improves Bimodal Benefit in Background Noise for Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Health service use, health outcomes and treatment costs of adults with a cochlear implant: a retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Unilateral Versus Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study Across Multiple Hearing Domains.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Differences in consonant confusion patterns between bimodal cochlear implant users with greater and less bimodal advantage.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- State-of-the-Art on the Impact of Bimodal Acoustic Stimulation on Speech Perception in Noise in Adults: A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2024Review
- The impact of spectral and temporal processing on speech recognition in children with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- CROS or hearing aid? Selecting the ideal solution for unilateral CI patients with limited aidable hearing in the contralateral ear.PloS one · 2024Article
- Hyperacusis Diagnosis and Management in the United States: Clinical Audiology Practice Patterns.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation to Speech Perception in Noise and Silence.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2023Article
- Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses.Hearing research · 2023Article
- Integration of fundamental frequency and voice-onset-time to voicing categorization: Listeners with normal hearing and bimodal hearing configurations.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Changes in Acoustic Absorbance Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations.Otology & neurotology open · 2022Article
- Dichotic spectral integration range for consonant recognition in listeners with normal hearing.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Current otorhinolaryngology reports · 2020Article
- Spatial Release From Informational and Energetic Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020Article
- Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2020Article
- Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.Seminars in hearing · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy.
designThis study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?"
resultsThis study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration.
conclusionsClinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.
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.