ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2020
Acoustic factors affecting interaural level differences for cochlear-implant users.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging spatial cues from cochlear implant microphones to efficiently enhance speech separation in naturalistic listening scenes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Localization performance of cochlear implant users with a real-time bilaterally-synchronized sound coding strategy that provides explicit interaural timing cues with mixed rates of stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Wave interference at the contralateral ear helps explain non-monotonic envelope interaural time differences as a function of azimuth.JASA express letters · 2023Article
- Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Sound source localization patterns and bilateral cochlear implants: Age at onset of deafness effects.PloS one · 2022Article
- Benefits of triple acoustic beamforming during speech-on-speech masking and sound localization for bilateral cochlear-implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Synchronized Automatic Gain Control in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients Yields Significant Benefit in Static and Dynamic Listening Conditions.Trends in hearingArticle
- Article
- Transmission of Binaural Cues by Bilateral Cochlear Implants: A Comparison of Spectral Peak-Picking and Interleaved Stimulation Strategies.Trends in hearingArticle
- Head Shadow, Summation, and Squelch in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users With Linked Automatic Gain Controls.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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bilateral cochlear-implant (BICI) listeners primarily use interaural level differences (ILDs) to localize sound in the horizontal plane. However, the ILD magnitude is altered at different frequencies and azimuths due to a combination of several acoustic phenomena such as the acoustical bright spot, acoustic axis, and microphone porting. This paper investigated the effects of BICI microphone placement on ILDs through an analysis of head-related transfer functions. At-the-canal BICI microphone placement provided both larger and more monotonic ILD-azimuth functions than behind-the-ear microphone placement. Results have implications for the fitting of clinical devices and their effect on sound localization in BICI users.
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.