ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020
Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Effects of Frequency Maps on Sentence Perception Between Simulated Bimodal Hearing and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Replacement Hearing Aids in Cochlear Implant Candidates Using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and Pupillometry.Audiology research · 2025Article
- [Audiological outcome of bimodal CI users over time and depending on different influencing factors].HNO · 2024Article
- Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).PloS one · 2024Article
- Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Modelling speech reception thresholds and their improvements due to spatial noise reduction algorithms in bimodal cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2022Article
- Selective attention decoding in bimodal cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Mythbusters! The Truth about Common Misconceptions in Cochlear Implantation.Seminars in hearing · 2021Review
- Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.Trends in hearingReview
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CI) improve hearing for the severely hearing impaired. With an extension of implantation candidacy, today many CI listeners use a hearing aid on their contralateral ear, referred to as bimodal listening. It is uncertain, however, whether the brains of bimodal listeners can combine the electrical and acoustical sound information and how much CI experience is needed to achieve an improved performance with bimodal listening. Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implant surgery were tested in their ability to understand speech in quiet and in noise, before and again 3 and 6 months after provision of a CI. Results of these bimodal listeners were compared to age-matched, normal hearing controls (NH). The benefit of adding a contralateral hearing aid was calculated in terms of head shadow, binaural summation, binaural squelch, and spatial release from masking from the results of a sentence recognition test. Beyond that, bimodal benefit was estimated from the difference in amplitudes and latencies of the N1, P2, and N2 potentials of the brains' auditory evoked response (AEP) toward speech. Data of fifteen participants contributed to the results. CI provision resulted in significant improvement of speech recognition with the CI ear, and in taking advantage of the head shadow effect for understanding speech in noise. Some amount of binaural processing was suggested by a positive binaural summation effect 6 month post-implantation that correlated significantly with symmetry of pure tone thresholds. Moreover, a significant negative correlation existed between binaural summation and latency of the P2 potential. With CI experience, morphology of the N1 and P2 potentials in the AEP response approximated that of NH, whereas, N2 remained different. Significant AEP differences between monaural and binaural processing were shown for NH and for bimodal listeners 6 month post-implantation. Although the grand-averaged difference in N1 amplitude between monaural and binaural listening was similar for NH and the bimodal group, source localization showed group-dependent differences in auditory and speech-relevant cortex, suggesting different processing in the bimodal listeners.
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.