Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533581›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.

Chadlia Karoui, Chris James, Pascal Barone, David Bakhos, Mathieu Marx, Olivier Macherey

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
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. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

NCT03117413 nacompletednot on this map

Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Brain Reorganisation of the Central Auditory Cortex in Asymetrical Profound Deaf Patient With a Cochlear Implantation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, ToulouseRan2017 to 2019Enrolled20ConditionsProfound Hearing ImpairmentArmsPositron emission tomography scan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Chadlia KarouiCentre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4661-1731
Chris JamesCochlear France SAS, Toulouse, France.
Pascal BaroneCentre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition, Toulouse, France.
David BakhosUniversité François-Rabelais de Tours, CHRU de Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1417-5082
Mathieu MarxCentre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition, Toulouse, France.
Olivier MachereyAix Marseille University, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, LMA, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessFemaleHearing Loss, UnilateralHumansMaleSoundSpeechSpeech PerceptionSpiral Ganglioncochlear implantsimulationsingle-sided deafnessvocoder

Identifiers

PMID31533581
PMCPMC6753516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.