ArticleTrends in hearing
Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03117413 (Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Brain Reorganisation of the Central Auditory Cortex in Asymetrical Profound Deaf Patient With a Cochlear Implantation), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Brain Reorganisation of the Central Auditory Cortex in Asymetrical Profound Deaf Patient With a Cochlear Implantation
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten years of research on the sound quality of cochlear implants.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Acoustic simulation of cochlear implant sound to approximate the perceptual experience of electric hearing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Objective intelligibility measurement of reverberant vocoded speech for normal-hearing listeners: Towards facilitating the development of speech enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Speech Perception as a Function of the Number of Channels and Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Simulation.Medeniyet medical journal · 2023Article
- Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023Article
- Intracranial electrophysiology of spectrally degraded speech in the human cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Article
- Temporal Cues in the Judgment of Music Emotion for Normal and Cochlear Implant Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
- Approximations to the Voice of a Cochlear Implant: Explorations With Single-Sided Deaf Listeners.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implantation in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) offers a unique opportunity to directly compare the percepts evoked by a cochlear implant (CI) with those evoked acoustically. Here, nine SSD-CI users performed a forced-choice task evaluating the similarity of speech processed by their CI with speech processed by several vocoders presented to their healthy ear. In each trial, subjects heard two intervals: their CI followed by a certain vocoder in Interval 1 and their CI followed by a different vocoder in Interval 2. The vocoders differed either (i) in carrier type-(sinusoidal [SINE], bandfiltered noise [NOISE], and pulse-spreading harmonic complex) or (ii) in frequency mismatch between the analysis and synthesis frequency ranges-(no mismatch, and two frequency-mismatched conditions of 2 and 4 equivalent rectangular bandwidths [ERBs]). Subjects had to state in which of the two intervals the CI and vocoder sounds were more similar. Despite a large intersubject variability, the PSHC vocoder was judged significantly more similar to the CI than SINE or NOISE vocoders. Furthermore, the No-mismatch and 2-ERB mismatch vocoders were judged significantly more similar to the CI than the 4-ERB mismatch vocoder. The mismatch data were also interpreted by comparing spiral ganglion characteristic frequencies with electrode contact positions determined from postoperative computed tomography scans. Only one subject demonstrated a pattern of preference consistent with adaptation to the CI sound processor frequency-to-electrode allocation table and two subjects showed possible partial adaptation. Those subjects with adaptation patterns presented overall small and consistent frequency mismatches across their electrode arrays.
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.