Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30522311›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2018

Development and validation of a spectro-temporal processing test for cochlear-implant listeners.

Alan W Archer-Boyd, Rosy V Southwell, John M Deeks, Richard E Turner, Robert P Carlyon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Limitations in human auditory spectral analysis at high frequencies.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Spectral Grouping of Electrically Encoded Sound Predicts Speech-in-Noise Performance in Cochlear Implantees.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Alan W Archer-BoydMRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Rosy V SouthwellMRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
John M DeeksMRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Richard E TurnerMRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Robert P CarlyonMRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105559842Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychophysical tests of spectro-temporal resolution may aid the evaluation of methods for improving hearing by cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Here the STRIPES (Spectro-Temporal Ripple for Investigating Processor EffectivenesS) test is described and validated. Like speech, the test requires both spectral and temporal processing to perform well. Listeners discriminate between complexes of sine sweeps which increase or decrease in frequency; difficulty is controlled by changing the stimulus spectro-temporal density. Care was taken to minimize extraneous cues, forcing listeners to perform the task only on the direction of the sweeps. Vocoder simulations with normal hearing listeners showed that the STRIPES test was sensitive to the number of channels and temporal information fidelity. An evaluation with CI listeners compared a standard processing strategy with one having very wide filters, thereby spectrally blurring the stimulus. Psychometric functions were monotonic for both strategies and five of six participants performed better with the standard strategy. An adaptive procedure revealed significant differences, all in favour of the standard strategy, at the individual listener level for six of eight CI listeners. Subsequent measures validated a faster version of the test, and showed that STRIPES could be performed by recently implanted listeners having no experience of psychophysical testing.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAuditory PerceptionBionicsCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCuesFemaleHearing TestsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNoisePitch Discrimination

Identifiers

PMID30522311
PMCPMC6805218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.