Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32320925›Full record

ArticleHearing research2020

The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Wiebke Lamping, Tobias Goehring, Jeremy Marozeau, Robert P Carlyon

Open access · hybridAbstract 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. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Modulation Depth Discrimination by Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  4. A Machine Learning-based Neural Implant Front End for Inducing Naturalistic Firing.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2021
    Article
  5. Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wiebke LampingHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: wl383@cam.ac.uk.
Tobias GoehringMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Jeremy MarozeauHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Robert P CarlyonMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBMedical Research Council · GBTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3Medical Research Council MR/T03095X/1Medical Research Council RG91365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech recognition in noisy environments remains a challenge for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Unwanted charge interactions between current pulses, both within and between electrode channels, are likely to impair performance. Here we investigate the effect of reducing the number of current pulses on speech perception. This was achieved by implementing a psychoacoustic temporal-masking model where current pulses in each channel were passed through a temporal integrator to identify and remove pulses that were less likely to be perceived by the recipient. The decision criterion of the temporal integrator was varied to control the percentage of pulses removed in each condition. In experiment 1, speech in quiet was processed with a standard Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) strategy and with 25, 50 and 75% of pulses removed. In experiment 2, performance was measured for speech in noise with the CIS reference and with 50 and 75% of pulses removed. Speech intelligibility in quiet revealed no significant difference between reference and test conditions. For speech in noise, results showed a significant improvement of 2.4 dB when removing 50% of pulses and performance was not significantly different between the reference and when 75% of pulses were removed. Further, by reducing the overall amount of current pulses by 25, 50, and 75% but accounting for the increase in charge necessary to compensate for the decrease in loudness, estimated average power savings of 21.15, 40.95, and 63.45%, respectively, could be possible for this set of listeners. In conclusion, removing temporally masked pulses may improve speech perception in noise and result in substantial power savings.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsPerceptual MaskingSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAgedAged, 80 and overCochlear ImplantationElectric StimulationHearingHearing LossHumansLoudness PerceptionMaleMiddle AgedNoisePersons with Hearing DisabilitiesCochlear implantMaskingSpeech perceptionTemporal integrator

Identifiers

PMID32320925
PMCPMC7116331
OpenAlexW3016145951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.