Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30378468›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.

Natalia Stupak, Monica Padilla, Robert P Morse, David M Landsberger

Abstract readComparative Study
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Natalia Stupak1 Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3422-1018
Monica Padilla1 Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, NY, USA.
Robert P Morse3 School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
David M Landsberger1 Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, NY, USA.

Funding

Reduction in spread of excitation as predictor multi-channel spectral resolutionR01DC012152 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear-implant users who have experienced both analog and pulsatile sound coding strategies often have strong preferences for the sound quality of one over the other. This suggests that analog and pulsatile stimulation may provide different information or sound quality to an implant listener. It has been well documented that many implant listeners both prefer and perform better with multichannel analog than multichannel pulsatile strategies, although the reasons for these differences remain unknown. Here, we examine the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation on a single electrode. A multidimensional scaling task, analyzed across two dimensions, suggested that pulsatile stimulation was perceived to be considerably different from analog stimulation. Two associated tasks using single-dimensional scaling showed that analog stimulation was perceived to be less Clean on average than pulsatile stimulation and that the perceptual differences were not related to pitch. In a follow-up experiment, it was determined that the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation were not dependent on the interpulse gap present in pulsatile stimulation. Although the results suggest that there is a large perceptual difference between analog and pulsatile stimulation, further work is needed to determine the nature of these differences.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionCochlear ImplantsAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedCochlear ImplantationDeafnessElectric StimulationFemaleHearingHumansLoudness PerceptionMaleMiddle AgedPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesPitch Perceptionamplitude modulationanalogcochlear implantmultidimensional scalingpitch scalingpulsatile

Identifiers

PMID30378468
PMCPMC6236864

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.