Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134842›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Comparing Rapid and Traditional Forward-Masked Spatial Tuning Curves in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Heather A Kreft, Lindsay A DeVries, Julie G Arenberg, Andrew J Oxenham

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Heather A Kreft1 Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0764-0820
Lindsay A DeVries2 Department Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0169-0165
Julie G Arenberg3 Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew J Oxenham1 Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Perceptual implications of cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfacesR01DC012142 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JULIE G Arenberg · 2012 to 2026
$6.5M
Supplement for temporal bone histological tissue scanning equipmentR01DC012262 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OXENHAM, ANDREW J. · 2013 to 2023
$4.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012142NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A rapid forward-masked spatial tuning curve measurement procedure, based on Bekesy tracking, was adapted and evaluated for use with cochlear implants. Twelve postlingually-deafened adult cochlear-implant users participated. Spatial tuning curves using the new procedure and using a traditional forced-choice adaptive procedure resulted in similar estimates of parameters. The Bekesy-tracking method was almost 3 times faster than the forced-choice procedure, but its test-retest reliability was significantly poorer. Although too time-consuming for general clinical use, the new method may have some benefits in individual cases, where identifying electrodes with poor spatial selectivity as candidates for deactivation is deemed necessary.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultDeafnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSpatial ProcessingBekesy trackingcochlear implantfrequency selectivityspatial tuning

Identifiers

PMID31134842
PMCPMC6540501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.