Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33104927›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2020

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech.

H C Stronks, J J Briaire, J H M Frijns

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Temporal and speech outcomes in bimodal cochlear implant users: The effect of device delay mismatch.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Vocal Emotion Perception in Children Using Cochlear Implant.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

H C StronksDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. h.c.stronks@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1251-8176
J J BriaireDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4302-817X
J H M FrijnsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1180-3314

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsNoiseSpeech PerceptionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTime Factorsbimodal hearingcochlear implantshearing aidssensorineural hearing lossspeech intelligibilityspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID33104927
PMCPMC7644728

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.