ArticlePloS one2020
Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users.American journal of audiology · 2023Trial
- Attrition in Cochlear Implant Research: Sociodemographic, Audiologic, and Performance Variables.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Effects of F1-F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Speech Recognition and Subjective Hearing Abilities for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users With Unilateral Hearing Loss.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2024Article
- Importance of ipsilateral residual hearing for spatial hearing by bimodal cochlear implant users.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023Article
- Cochlear implant spectral bandwidth for optimizing electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).Hearing research · 2022Article
- Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention Impairment Induced by Long-Term Exposure to Noise in the Absence of Threshold Shifts.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Emotional Responses to Non-Speech Sounds for Hearing-aid and Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Listeners.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In bimodal listening, cochlear implant (CI) users combine electric hearing (EH) in one ear and acoustic hearing (AH) in the other ear. In electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), CI users combine EH and AH in the same ear. In quiet, integration of EH and AH has been shown to be better with EAS, but with greater sensitivity to tonotopic mismatch in EH. The goal of the present study was to evaluate how external noise might affect integration of AH and EH within or across ears. Recognition of monosyllabic words was measured for normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal (AH or EH alone), EAS, and bimodal listening in quiet and in speech-shaped steady noise (10 dB, 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio). The input/output frequency range for AH was 0.1-0.6 kHz. EH was simulated using an 8-channel noise vocoder. The output frequency range was 1.2-8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth. The input frequency range was either matched (1.2-8.0 kHz) or mismatched (0.6-8.0 kHz) to the output frequency range; the mismatched input range maximized the amount of speech information, while the matched input resulted in some speech information loss. In quiet, tonotopic mismatch differently affected EAS and bimodal performance. In noise, EAS and bimodal performance was similarly affected by tonotopic mismatch. The data suggest that tonotopic mismatch may differently affect integration of EH and AH in quiet and in noise.
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.