Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34133400›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Novel Approaches to Measure Spatial Release From Masking in Children With Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Z Ellen Peng, Ruth Y Litovsky

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Z Ellen PengWaisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Ruth Y Litovsky
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Directional Hearing in Complex Auditory EnvironmentsR01DC003083 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI LITOVSKY, RUTH Y · 2004 to 2020
$7.4M
POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MENTAL RETARDATION RESEARCHT32HD007489 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Sigan L Hartley · 1995 to 2026
$6.0M
Waisman Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Down Syndrome RegistryU54HD090256 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CHANG, QIANG · 2016 to 2020
$6.0M
Spatial Hearing in Children with Normal Hearing and Bilateral Cochlear ImplantsR01DC008365 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI LITOVSKY, RUTH Y · 2007 to 2018
$4.6M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007489NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD090256NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003083NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the role of auditory cues for spatial release from masking (SRM) in children with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) and compare their performance with children with normal hearing (NH). To quantify the contribution to speech intelligibility benefits from individual auditory cues: head shadow, binaural redundancy, and interaural differences; as well as from multiple cues: SRM and binaural squelch. To assess SRM using a novel approach of adaptive target-masker angular separation, which provides a more functionally relevant assessment in realistic complex auditory environments.

designChildren fitted with BiCIs (N = 11) and with NH (N = 18) were tested in virtual acoustic space that was simulated using head-related transfer functions measured from individual children with BiCIs behind the ear and from a standard head and torso simulator for all NH children. In experiment I, by comparing speech reception thresholds across 4 test conditions that varied in target-masker spatial separation (colocated versus separated at 180°) and listening conditions (monaural versus binaural/bilateral listening), intelligibility benefits were derived for individual auditory cues for SRM. In experiment II, SRM was quantified using a novel measure to find the minimum angular separation (MAS) between the target and masker to achieve a fixed 20% intelligibility improvement. Target speech was fixed at either +90 or -90° azimuth on the side closer to the better ear (+90° for all NH children) and masker locations were adaptively varied.

resultsIn experiment I, children with BiCIs as a group had smaller intelligibility benefits from head shadow than NH children. No group difference was observed in benefits from binaural redundancy or interaural difference cues. In both groups of children, individuals who gained a larger benefit from interaural differences relied less on monaural head shadow, and vice versa. In experiment II, all children with BiCIs demonstrated measurable MAS thresholds <180° and on average larger than that from NH children. Eight of 11 children with BiCIs and all NH children had a MAS threshold <90°, requiring interaural differences only to gain the target intelligibility benefit; whereas the other 3 children with BiCIs had a MAS between 120° and 137°, requiring monaural head shadow for SRM.

conclusionsWhen target and maskers were separated at 180° on opposing hemifields, children with BiCIs demonstrated greater intelligibility benefits from head shadow and interaural differences than previous literature showed with a smaller separation. Children with BiCIs demonstrated individual differences in using auditory cues for SRM. From the MAS thresholds, more than half of the children with BiCIs demonstrated robust access to interaural differences without needing additional monaural head shadow for SRM. Both experiments led to the conclusion that individualized fitting strategies in the bilateral devices may be warranted to maximize spatial hearing for children with BiCIs in complex auditory environments.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionChildHearingHumansPerceptual MaskingSpeech Intelligibility

Identifiers

PMID34133400
PMCPMC8671563
OpenAlexW3167911539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.