Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32948894›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2021

Contribution of noise reduction pre-processing and microphone directionality strategies in the speech recognition in noise in adult cochlear implant users.

Maria Valeria Schmidt Goffi-Gomez, Lilian Muniz, Gislaine Wiemes, Lucia Cristina Onuki, Luciane Calonga, Francisco José Osterne, Maria Isabel Kós, Fernanda Ferreira Caldas, Carolina Cardoso, Byanka Cagnacci

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Valeria Schmidt Goffi-GomezHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP, São Paulo, Brazil. valeria.goffi@hc.fm.usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4440-7692
Lilian MunizHospital Agamenon Magalhães, Recife, Brazil.
Gislaine WiemesInstituto Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital IPO, Curitiba, Brazil.
Lucia Cristina OnukiHospital das Clínicas da UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.
Luciane CalongaHospital das Clínicas da UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.
Francisco José OsterneHospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, UFRJ, Janeiro, Brazil.
Maria Isabel KósHospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, UFRJ, Janeiro, Brazil.
Fernanda Ferreira CaldasInstituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia, Brasília, Brazil.
Carolina CardosoInstituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia, Brasília, Brazil.
Byanka CagnacciCochlear Latin America, International Business Park, Panama.
Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho · BRInstituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRHospital IPO · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRefinement currently offered in new sound processors may improve noise listening capability reducing constant background noise and enhancing listening in challenging signal-to-noise conditions. This study aimed to identify whether the new version of speech processor preprocessing strategy contributes to speech recognition in background noise compared to the previous generation processor.

methodsThis was a multicentric prospective cross-sectional study. Post-lingually deaf adult patients, with at least 1 year of device use and speech recognition scores above 60% on HINT sentences in quiet were invited. Speech recognition performance in quiet and in noise with sound processors with previous and recent technologies was assessed under four conditions with speech coming from the front: (a) quiet (b) fixed noise coming from the front, (c) fixed noise coming from the back, and (d) adaptive noise ratios with noise coming from the front.

resultsForty-seven cochlear implant users were included. No significant difference was found in quiet condition. Performance with the new processor was statistically better than the previous sound processor in all three noisy conditions (p < 0.05). With fixed noise coming from the back condition, speech recognition was 62.9% with the previous technology and 73.5% on the new one (p < 0.05). The mean speech recognition in noise was also statistically higher, with 5.8 dB and 7.1 dB for the newer and older technologies (p < 0.05), respectively.

conclusionNew technology has shown to provide benefits regarding speech recognition in noise. In addition, the new background noise reduction technology, has shown to be effective and improves speech recognition in situations of more intense noise coming from behind.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesSpeechCochlear implantDirectional microphonesNoise reductionSpeech recognition

Identifiers

PMID32948894
OpenAlexW3087427785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.