ArticleeLife2021
Microsecond interaural time difference discrimination restored by cochlear implants after neonatal deafness.
Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Auditory Stimulation, Not Device Type: Comparable Cortical Maturation in Children Using Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Neurophysiological sensitivity to envelope and pulse timing interaural time differences in cochlear implanted rats with different hearing experiences.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Best cochlear locations for delivering interaural timing cues in electric hearing.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Interactions of Interaural Time and Level Differences in Spatial Hearing with Cochlear Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Pulse timing dominates binaural hearing with cochlear implants.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Interaural level difference sensitivity in neonatally deafened rats fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Dissociated Representation of Binaural Cues in Single-Sided Deafness: Implications for Cochlear Implantation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Does age protect against loss of tonotopy after acute deafness in adulthood?Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Article
- Rate dependent neural responses of interaural-time-difference cues in fine-structure and envelope.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Interaural time difference sensitivity under binaural cochlear implant stimulation persists at high pulse rates up to 900 pps.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Simulation of ITD-Dependent Single-Neuron Responses Under Electrical Stimulation and with Amplitude-Modulated Acoustic Stimuli.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- The precedence effect in spatial hearing manifests in cortical neural population responses.BMC biology · 2022Article
- Temporal hyper-precision of brainstem neurons alters spatial sensitivity of binaural auditory processing with cochlear implants.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Sound source localization patterns and bilateral cochlear implants: Age at onset of deafness effects.PloS one · 2022Article
- Sensitivity of neural responses in the inferior colliculus to statistical features of sound textures.Hearing research · 2021Article
- Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021Review
- Article
- Review of Binaural Processing With Asymmetrical Hearing Outcomes in Patients With Bilateral Cochlear Implants.Trends in hearingReview
- Limitations on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Users: A Compilation of Viewpoints.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial hearing in cochlear implant (CI) patients remains a major challenge, with many early deaf users reported to have no measurable sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITDs). Deprivation of binaural experience during an early critical period is often hypothesized to be the cause of this shortcoming. However, we show that neonatally deafened (ND) rats provided with precisely synchronized CI stimulation in adulthood can be trained to lateralize ITDs with essentially normal behavioral thresholds near 50 μs. Furthermore, comparable ND rats show high physiological sensitivity to ITDs immediately after binaural implantation in adulthood. Our result that ND-CI rats achieved very good behavioral ITD thresholds, while prelingually deaf human CI patients often fail to develop a useful sensitivity to ITD raises urgent questions concerning the possibility that shortcomings in technology or treatment, rather than missing input during early development, may be behind the usually poor binaural outcomes for current CI patients.
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.