Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34001987›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The effect of increased channel interaction on speech perception with cochlear implants.

Tobias Goehring, Alan W Archer-Boyd, Julie G Arenberg, Robert P Carlyon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tobias GoehringCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK. tobias.goehring@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
Alan W Archer-BoydCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK.
Julie G ArenbergMassachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK.
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GBHarvard University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CIs) are neuroprostheses that partially restore hearing for people with severe-to-profound hearing loss. While CIs can provide good speech perception in quiet listening situations for many, they fail to do so in environments with interfering sounds for most listeners. Previous research suggests that this is due to detrimental interaction effects between CI electrode channels, limiting their function to convey frequency-specific information, but evidence is still scarce. In this study, an experimental manipulation called spectral blurring was used to increase channel interaction in CI listeners using Advanced Bionics devices with HiFocus 1J and MS electrode arrays to directly investigate its causal effect on speech perception. Instead of using a single electrode per channel as in standard CI processing, spectral blurring used up to 6 electrodes per channel simultaneously to increase the overlap between adjacent frequency channels as would occur in cases with severe channel interaction. Results demonstrated that this manipulation significantly degraded CI speech perception in quiet by 15% and speech reception thresholds in babble noise by 5 dB when all channels were blurred by a factor of 6. Importantly, when channel interaction was increased just on a subset of electrodes, speech scores were mostly unaffected and were only significantly degraded when the 5 most apical channels were blurred. These apical channels convey information up to 1 kHz at the apical end of the electrode array and are typically located at angular insertion depths of about 250 up to 500°. These results confirm and extend earlier findings indicating that CI speech perception may not benefit from deactivating individual channels along the array and that efforts should instead be directed towards reducing channel interaction per se and in particular for the most-apical electrodes. Hereby, causal methods such as spectral blurring could be used in future research to control channel interaction effects within listeners for evaluating compensation strategies.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAgedAuditory PerceptionCochleaCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNoiseSpeech Perception

Identifiers

PMID34001987
PMCPMC8128897
OpenAlexW3160823012

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.