ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021
Multisensory Integration-Attention Trade-Off in Cochlear-Implanted Deaf Individuals.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The cochlear implant (CI) allows profoundly deaf individuals to partially recover hearing. Still, due to the coarse acoustic information provided by the implant, CI users have considerable difficulties in recognizing speech, especially in noisy environments. CI users therefore rely heavily on visual cues to augment speech recognition, more so than normal-hearing individuals. However, it is unknown how attention to one (focused) or both (divided) modalities plays a role in multisensory speech recognition. Here we show that unisensory speech listening and reading were negatively impacted in divided-attention tasks for CI users-but not for normal-hearing individuals. Our psychophysical experiments revealed that, as expected, listening thresholds were consistently better for the normal-hearing, while lipreading thresholds were largely similar for the two groups. Moreover, audiovisual speech recognition for normal-hearing individuals could be described well by probabilistic summation of auditory and visual speech recognition, while CI users were better integrators than expected from statistical facilitation alone. Our results suggest that this benefit in integration comes at a cost. Unisensory speech recognition is degraded for CI users when attention needs to be divided across modalities. We conjecture that CI users exhibit an integration-attention trade-off. They focus solely on a single modality during focused-attention tasks, but need to divide their limited attentional resources in situations with uncertainty about the upcoming stimulus modality. We argue that in order to determine the benefit of a CI for speech recognition, situational factors need to be discounted by presenting speech in realistic or complex audiovisual environments.
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.