Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33305696›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

The Effect of Free-Field Presentation and Processing Strategy on a Measure of Spectro-Temporal Processing by Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Alan W Archer-Boyd, Tobias Goehring, Robert P Carlyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Alan W Archer-BoydCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 2152University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8828-4295
Tobias GoehringCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 2152University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 2152University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3Medical Research Council MR/T03095X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The STRIPES (Spectro-Temporal Ripple for Investigating Processor EffectivenesS) test is a psychophysical test of spectro-temporal resolution developed for cochlear-implant (CI) listeners. Previously, the test has been strictly controlled to minimize the introduction of extraneous, nonspectro-temporal cues. Here, the effect of relaxing many of those controls was investigated to ascertain the generalizability of the STRIPES test. Preemphasis compensation was removed from the STRIPES stimuli, the test was presented over a loudspeaker at a level similar to conversational speech and above the automatic gain control threshold of the CI processor, and listeners were tested using the everyday setting of their clinical devices. There was no significant difference in STRIPES thresholds measured across conditions for the 10 CI listeners tested. One listener obtained higher (better) thresholds when listening with their clinical processor. An analysis of longitudinal results showed excellent test-retest reliability of STRIPES over multiple listening sessions with similar conditions. Overall, the results show that the STRIPES test is robust to extraneous cues, and that thresholds are reliable over time. It is sufficiently robust for use with different processing strategies, free-field presentation, and in nonresearch settings.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionTime PerceptionHumansReproducibility of Resultsbehavioral testcochlear implantfree-fieldspectro-temporal

Identifiers

PMID33305696
PMCPMC7734493

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.