ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2021
Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear-implant (CI) users experience less success in understanding speech in noisy, real-world listening environments than normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Perceptual restoration is one method NH listeners use to repair noise-interrupted speech. Whereas previous work has reported that CI users can use perceptual restoration in certain cases, they failed to do so under listening conditions in which NH listeners can successfully restore. Providing increased opportunities to use top-down linguistic knowledge is one possible method to increase perceptual restoration use in CI users. This work tested perceptual restoration abilities in 18 CI users and varied whether a semantic cue (presented visually) was available prior to the target sentence (presented auditorily). Results showed that whereas access to a semantic cue generally improved performance with interrupted speech, CI users failed to perceptually restore speech regardless of the semantic cue availability. The lack of restoration in this population directly contradicts previous work in this field and raises questions of whether restoration is possible in CI users. One reason for speech-in-noise understanding difficulty in CI users could be that they are unable to use tools like restoration to process noise-interrupted speech effectively.
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.