Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519088›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2020

Using Spectral Blurring to Assess Effects of Channel Interaction on Speech-in-Noise Perception with Cochlear Implants.

Tobias Goehring, Julie G Arenberg, Robert P Carlyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Tobias GoehringCambridge Hearing Group, Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK. tobias.goehring@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9038-3310
Julie G ArenbergMassachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) listeners struggle to understand speech in background noise. Interactions between electrode channels due to current spread increase the masking of speech by noise and lead to difficulties with speech perception. Strategies that reduce channel interaction therefore have the potential to improve speech-in-noise perception by CI listeners, but previous results have been mixed. We investigated the effects of channel interaction on speech-in-noise perception and its association with spectro-temporal acuity in a listening study with 12 experienced CI users. Instead of attempting to reduce channel interaction, we introduced spectral blurring to simulate some of the effects of channel interaction by adjusting the overlap between electrode channels at the input level of the analysis filters or at the output by using several simultaneously stimulated electrodes per channel. We measured speech reception thresholds in noise as a function of the amount of blurring applied to either all 15 electrode channels or to 5 evenly spaced channels. Performance remained roughly constant as the amount of blurring applied to all channels increased up to some knee point, above which it deteriorated. This knee point differed across listeners in a way that correlated with performance on a non-speech spectro-temporal task, and is proposed here as an individual measure of channel interaction. Surprisingly, even extreme amounts of blurring applied to 5 channels did not affect performance. The effects on speech perception in noise were similar for blurring at the input and at the output of the CI. The results are in line with the assumption that experienced CI users can make use of a limited number of effective channels of information and tolerate some deviations from their everyday settings when identifying speech in the presence of a masker. Furthermore, these findings may explain the mixed results by strategies that optimized or deactivated a small number of electrodes evenly distributed along the array by showing that blurring or deactivating one-third of the electrodes did not harm speech-in-noise performance.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsNoiseSpeech AcousticsSpeech PerceptionAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedchannel interactioncochlear implantssite selectionspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID32519088
PMCPMC7445227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.