Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30870240›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Mechanisms of Localization and Speech Perception with Colocated and Spatially Separated Noise and Speech Maskers Under Single-Sided Deafness with a Cochlear Implant.

Coral Dirks, Peggy B Nelson, Douglas P Sladen, Andrew J Oxenham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Coral DirksDepartment of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Peggy B NelsonDepartment of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Douglas P SladenDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA.
Andrew J OxenhamDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Supplement for temporal bone histological tissue scanning equipmentR01DC012262 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OXENHAM, ANDREW J. · 2013 to 2023
$4.7M
Using binaural beat sensitivity to describe mechanisms that may enhance binaural interactions in single-sided-deafness cochlear-implant patientsF32DC016815 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI DIRKS, CORAL E · 2017 to 2019
$194k
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC016815NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study tested listeners with a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and acoustic hearing in the other ear, to assess their ability to localize sound and to understand speech in collocated or spatially separated noise or speech maskers.

designEight CI listeners with contralateral acoustic hearing ranging from normal hearing to moderate sensorineural hearing loss were tested. Localization accuracy was measured in five of the listeners using stimuli that emphasized the separate contributions of interaural level differences (ILDs) and interaural time differences (ITD) in the temporal envelope and/or fine structure. Sentence recognition was tested in all eight CI listeners, using collocated and spatially separated speech-shaped Gaussian noise and two-talker babble. Performance was compared with that of age-matched normal-hearing listeners via loudspeakers or via headphones with vocoder simulations of CI processing.

resultsLocalization improved with the CI but only when high-frequency ILDs were available. Listeners experienced no additional benefit via ITDs in the stimulus envelope or fine structure using real or vocoder-simulated CIs. Speech recognition in two-talker babble improved with a CI in seven of the eight listeners when the target was located at the front and the babble was presented on the side of the acoustic-hearing ear, but otherwise showed little or no benefit of a CI.

conclusionSound localization can be improved with a CI in cases of significant residual hearing in the contralateral ear, but only for sounds with high-frequency content, and only based on ILDs. In speech understanding, the CI contributed most when it was in the ear with the better signal to noise ratio with a speech masker.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationSound LocalizationSpeech PerceptionAdultCase-Control StudiesCochlear ImplantsHearing Loss, UnilateralHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID30870240
PMCPMC6732049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.