ArticleTrends in hearing
Sound Localization in Real-Time Vocoded Cochlear-Implant Simulations With Normal-Hearing Listeners.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of two response tracking methods for sound localization with concealed sound sources.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spatial hearing adaptation in congenital and acquired single-sided deafness.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Reduced Cochlear Implant Performance in Listeners with Single-Sided Deafness: Comparison with Bilateral Listeners.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Piezoelectric nanofiber-based intelligent hearing system.Science advances · 2025Article
- Sound Localization with Hearables in Transparency Mode.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Auditory Spatial Discrimination and Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deaf Participants Provided with a Cochlear Implant.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2024Article
- Contralateral Routing of Signal Disrupts Monaural Sound Localization.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Activities of the Right Temporo-Parieto-Occipital Junction Reflect Spatial Hearing Ability in Cochlear Implant Users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Spatial Hearing by Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users With Temporal Fine-Structure Processing.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.Trends in hearingReview
- Article
- Synchronized Automatic Gain Control in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients Yields Significant Benefit in Static and Dynamic Listening Conditions.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Development of Sound Localization Latency in Infants and Young Children with Normal Hearing.Trends in hearingArticle
- Reaction Time Sensitivity to Spectrotemporal Modulations of Sound.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users and single-sided deaf listeners with a CI are less effective at localizing sounds than normal-hearing (NH) listeners. This performance gap is due to the degradation of binaural and monaural sound localization cues, caused by a combination of device-related and patient-related issues. In this study, we targeted the device-related issues by measuring sound localization performance of 11 NH listeners, listening to free-field stimuli processed by a real-time CI vocoder. The use of a real-time vocoder is a new approach, which enables testing in a free-field environment. For the NH listening condition, all listeners accurately and precisely localized sounds according to a linear stimulus-response relationship with an optimal gain and a minimal bias both in the azimuth and in the elevation directions. In contrast, when listening with bilateral real-time vocoders, listeners tended to orient either to the left or to the right in azimuth and were unable to determine sound source elevation. When listening with an NH ear and a unilateral vocoder, localization was impoverished on the vocoder side but improved toward the NH side. Localization performance was also reflected by systematic variations in reaction times across listening conditions. We conclude that perturbation of interaural temporal cues, reduction of interaural level cues, and removal of spectral pinna cues by the vocoder impairs sound localization. Listeners seem to ignore cues that were made unreliable by the vocoder, leading to acute reweighting of available localization cues. We discuss how current CI processors prevent CI users from localizing sounds in everyday environments.
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.