ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2020
A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Functions and Subjective Hearing in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Intracranial electrophysiology of spectrally degraded speech in the human cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEnormous variability in speech recognition outcomes persists in adults who receive cochlear implants (CIs), which leads to a barrier to progress in predicting outcomes before surgery, explaining "poor" outcomes, and determining how to provide tailored rehabilitation therapy for individual CI users. The primary goal of my research program over the past 9 years has been to extend our understanding of the contributions of "top-down" cognitive-linguistic skills to CI outcomes in adults, acknowledging that "bottom-up" sensory processes also contribute substantially. The main objective of this invited narrative review is to provide an overview of this work. A secondary objective is to provide career "guidance points" to budding surgeon-scientists in Otolaryngology.
methodsA narrative, chronological review covers work done by our group to explore top-down and bottom-up processing in adult CI outcomes. A set of ten guidance points is also provided to assist junior Otolaryngology surgeon-scientists.
resultsWork in our lab has identified substantial contributions of cognitive skills (working memory, inhibition-concentration, speed of lexical access, nonverbal reasoning, verbal learning and memory) as well as linguistic abilities (acoustic cue-weighting, phonological sensitivity) to speech recognition outcomes in adults with CIs. These top-down skills interact with the quality of the bottom-up input.
conclusionAlthough progress has been made in understanding speech recognition variability in adult CI users, future work is needed to predict CI outcomes before surgery, to identify particular patients' strengths and weaknesses, and to tailor rehabilitation approaches for individual CI users. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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.