ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 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
- Temporal Pitch Perception of Multi-Channel Stimuli by Cochlear-Implant Users.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- The Greenwood function shows close alignment with pitch perceived by cochlear implant patients with long, flexible electrode arrays and fine-structure stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of selective stimulation of apical electrodes on temporal pitch perception by cochlear implant recipients.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Can Music Enhance Working Memory and Speech in Noise Perception in Cochlear Implant Users? Design Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Behavioral and Electrophysiological Study.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).PloS one · 2024Article
- Patient perspectives on the need for improved hearing rehabilitation: A qualitative survey study of German cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Application of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Cochlear Implant Patients: Implications for the Design of Specific Rehabilitation Programs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Upward Shifts in the Internal Representation of Frequency Can Persist Over a 3-Year Period for Cochlear Implant Patients Fit With a Relatively Short Electrode Array.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- The sound sensation of a pure tone in cochlear implant recipients with single-sided deafness.PloS one · 2020Article
- Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.Trends in hearingReview
- Impact of Presentation Order on Pitch Ranking Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Users and Normal-Hearing Listeners and Its Mitigation.Trends in hearingArticle
- A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.Trends in hearingArticle
- Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users: Channel Independence in Apical Cochlear Regions.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
Previous studies in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) have reported results of pitch comparisons between electric stimulation of their cochlear implant (CI) and acoustic stimulation presented to their near-normal hearing contralateral ear. These comparisons typically used sinusoids, although the percept elicited by electric stimulation may be closer to a wideband stimulus. Furthermore, it has been shown that pitch comparisons between sounds with different timbres is a difficult task and subjected to various types of range biases. The present study aims to introduce a method to minimize non-sensory biases, and to investigate the effect of different acoustic stimulus types on the frequency and variability of the electric-acoustic pitch matches. Pitch matches were collected from 13 CI users with SSD using the binary search procedure. Electric stimulation was presented at either an apical or a middle electrode position, at a rate of 800 pps. Acoustic stimulus types were sinusoids (SINE), 1/3-octave wide narrow bands of Gaussian noises (NBN), or 1/3-octave wide pulse spreading harmonic complexes (PSHC). On the one hand, NBN and PSHC are presumed to better mimic the spread of excitation produced by a single-electrode stimulation than SINE. On the other hand, SINE and PSHC contain less inherent fluctuations than NBN and may therefore provide a temporal pattern closer to that produced by a constant-amplitude electric pulse train. Analysis of mean pitch match variance showed no differences between stimulus types. However, mean pitch matches showed effects of electrode position and stimulus type, with the middle electrode always matched to a higher frequency than the apical one (
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.