ArticlePloS one2019
Speech perception in noise: Impact of directional microphones in users of combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech recognition performance with dual-microphone audio processors in mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- [Fitting of cochlear implant systems].HNO · 2025Review
- Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception in Noise in Bimodal/Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with and without Residual Hearing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Enhancing Cochlear Implant Outcomes across Age Groups: The Interplay of Forward Focus and Advanced Combination Encoder Coding Strategies in Noisy Conditions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCombined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is a well-accepted therapeutic treatment for cochlear implant (CI) users with residual hearing in the low frequencies but severe to profound hearing loss in the high frequencies. The recently introduced SONNETeas audio processor offers different microphone directionality (MD) settings and wind noise reduction (WNR) as front-end processing. The aim of this study was to compare speech perception in quiet and noise between two EAS audio processors DUET 2 and SONNETeas, to assess the impact of MD and WNR on speech perception in EAS users in the absence of wind. Furthermore, subjective rating of hearing performance was registered.
methodSpeech perception and subjective rating with SONNETeas or DUET 2 audio processor were assessed in 10 experienced EAS users. Speech perception was measured in quiet and in a diffuse noise setup (MSNF). The SONNETeas processor was tested with three MD settings omnidirectional/natural/adaptive and with different intensities of WNR. Subjective rating of auditory benefit and sound quality was rated using two questionnaires.
resultsThere was no significant difference between DUET 2 and SONNETeas processor using the omnidirectional microphone in quiet and in noise. There was a significant improvement in SRT with MD settings natural (2.2 dB) and adaptive (3.6 dB). No detrimental effect of the WNR algorithm on speech perception was found in the absence of wind. Sound quality was rated as "moderate" for both audio processors.
conclusionsThe different MD settings of the SONNETeas can provide EAS users with better speech perception compared to an omnidirectional microphone. Concerning speech perception in quiet and quality of life, the performance of the DUET 2 and SONNETeas audio processors was comparable.
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.