Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32182551›Full record

ArticleHearing research2020

Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.

René H Gifford, G Christopher Stecker

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07356128 (Binaural Cue Sensitivity in Children and Adults With Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

NCT07356128 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Binaural Cue Sensitivity in Children and Adults With Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation

TypeobservationalSponsorHearts for HearingRan2025 to 2028Enrolled200ConditionsBilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Cochlear Implant, Hearing Preservation, Electric and Acoustic SimulationArmsbinaural processing over time, binaural processing over time for children and adults with normal hearing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Remote measurement of spectral weighting in sound localization using virtual reality headsets.Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. Acoustical Society of America · 2021
    Article
  10. Bilateral cochlear implantation: an assessment of language sub-skills and phoneme recognition in school-aged children.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

René H GiffordVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: rene.gifford@Vanderbilt.edu.
G Christopher SteckerBoys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE, USA.
Boys Town National Research Hospital · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

Cochlear Implants: Combined Electric and Binaural Acoustic StimulationR01DC009404 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GIFFORD, RENE H · 2010 to 2019
$3.4M
Temporal weighting of auditory spatial cuesR01DC011548 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI STECKER, GEORGE CHRISTOPHER · 2011 to 2015
$1.9M
Psychophysical Reweighting of Auditory Spatial CuesR01DC016643 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI STECKER, GEORGE CHRISTOPHER · 2018 to 2022
$1.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009404NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011548NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016643
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bilateral acoustic hearing in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation may allow access to binaural cues. Sensitivity to acoustic binaural cues has been shown in some listeners combining electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS), yet remains poorly understood and may be subject to limitations imposed by the electrical stimulation and/or amplification asymmetries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of stimulus level, frequency-dependent gain, and the addition of unilateral electrical stimulation on sensitivity to low-frequency binaural cues. Thresholds were measured for interaural time and level differences (ITD and ILD) carried by a low-frequency, bandpass noise (100-800 Hz). 16 adult CI EAS listeners (mean age = 50.2 years) each participated in three listening conditions: acoustic hearing only at 90 dB SPL, acoustic hearing only at 60 dB SPL with frequency-dependent gain, and acoustic hearing plus unilateral CI at 60 dB SPL with frequency-dependent gain applied to the acoustic channels only. Results revealed thresholds within the ecologically relevant ITD and/or ILD range for most EAS listeners. No significant effects of presentation level, frequency-dependent gain, or the addition of unilateral electrical stimulation on the resultant thresholds for ITDs or ILDs were observed at the group level. Correlational analyses related ITD and ILD thresholds to the degree of EAS benefit (i.e., advantage of acoustic hearing in the implanted ear) for speech recognition in diffuse noise. There was a significant relationship between EAS benefit and ITD thresholds, but no statistically significant relationship between EAS benefit and ILD thresholds. In summary, the results of this study are not consistent with our previous data obtained with simulated EAS in normal-hearing listeners, which showed significant binaural interference by a unilateral electrical "distractor" (Van Ginkel et al., 2019). The difference between studies suggests that chronic exposure to unilateral electrical stimulation combined with bilateral acoustic stimulation may reduce interference effects, perhaps because listeners adapt to the presence of the constant but binaurally incongruous CI stimulus. These results are consistent with past studies that demonstrated no interference in spatial hearing tasks due to the addition of a unilateral CI in adult EAS listeners.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsCuesHearingSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAuditory ThresholdCase-Control StudiesCochlear ImplantationElectric StimulationFemaleHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedBinaural cuesBinaural interferenceCochlear implantElectric and acoustic stimulation (EAS)Hearing preservation

Identifiers

PMID32182551
PMCPMC7187911
OpenAlexW3007293944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.