ArticleHearing research2020
Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
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.
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.
Binaural Cue Sensitivity in Children and Adults With Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Affecting Audiometric and Speech Perception Outcomes in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Recipients.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Spatial hearing adaptation in congenital and acquired single-sided deafness.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Hearing preservation outcomes with motorized cochlear implant electrode insertion: matched-cohort observations.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Importance of ipsilateral residual hearing for spatial hearing by bimodal cochlear implant users.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cochlear implant spectral bandwidth for optimizing electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).Hearing research · 2022Article
- Considerations in pediatric device candidacy: An emphasis on spoken language.Cochlear implants international · 2022Article
- Changes in Acoustic Absorbance Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Remote measurement of spectral weighting in sound localization using virtual reality headsets.Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Benefits of Binaural Integration in Cochlear Implant Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and Residual Hearing in the Implanted Ear.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Article
- Hearing Asymmetry Biases Spatial Hearing in Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Users Despite Bilateral Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation.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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.