ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2019
Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Remote measurement of spectral weighting in sound localization using virtual reality headsets.Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.Hearing research · 2020Article
- Hearing Asymmetry Biases Spatial Hearing in Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Users Despite Bilateral Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation.Trends in hearingArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing in cochlear implant (CI) recipients affords combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) that could improve access to low-frequency acoustic binaural cues and enhance spatial hearing. Such benefits, however, could be undermined by interactions between electrical and acoustical inputs to adjacent (spectral overlap) or distant (binaural interference) cochlear places in EAS. This study simulated EAS in normal-hearing listeners, measuring interaural time difference (ITD) and interaural level difference (ILD) discrimination thresholds for a low-frequency noise (simulated acoustic target) in the presence or absence of a pulsatile high-frequency complex presented monotically or diotically (simulated unilateral or bilateral electric distractor). Unilateral distractors impaired thresholds for both cue types, suggesting influences of both binaural interference (which appeared more consistently for ITD than ILD) and physical spectral overlap (for both cue types). Reducing spectral overlap with an EAS gap between 1 and 3 kHz consistently improved binaural sensitivity. Finally, listeners displayed significantly lower thresholds with simulated bilateral versus unilateral electric stimulation. The combined effects revealed similar or better thresholds in bilateral full spectral overlap than in unilateral EAS gap conditions, suggesting that bilateral implantation with bilateral acoustic hearing preservation could allow for higher tolerance of spectral overlap in CI users and improved binaural sensitivity over unilateral EAS.
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.