ArticlePloS one2021
Assessing the relationship between neural health measures and speech performance with simultaneous electric stimulation in cochlear implant listeners.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Neural tracking of continuous speech reveals enhanced late responses to degraded speech.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- An Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Marker for Local Spiral Ganglion Neuron Degeneration: The Failure Index.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- PET imaging of tissue reactions in the implanted cochlea: results of a pilot study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- A computational model to simulate spectral modulation and speech perception experiments of cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Comparison of response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve reported in human listeners and in animal models.Hearing research · 2022Review
- Article
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
objectivesThe relationship between electrode-nerve interface (ENI) estimates and inter-subject differences in speech performance with sequential and simultaneous channel stimulation in adult cochlear implant listeners were explored. We investigated the hypothesis that individuals with good ENIs would perform better with simultaneous compared to sequential channel stimulation speech processing strategies than those estimated to have poor ENIs.
methodsFourteen postlingually deaf implanted cochlear implant users participated in the study. Speech understanding was assessed with a sentence test at signal-to-noise ratios that resulted in 50% performance for each user with the baseline strategy F120 Sequential. Two simultaneous stimulation strategies with either two (Paired) or three sets of virtual channels (Triplet) were tested at the same signal-to-noise ratio. ENI measures were estimated through: (I) voltage spread with electrical field imaging, (II) behavioral detection thresholds with focused stimulation, and (III) slope (IPG slope effect) and 50%-point differences (dB offset effect) of amplitude growth functions from electrically evoked compound action potentials with two interphase gaps.
resultsA significant effect of strategy on speech understanding performance was found, with Triplets showing a trend towards worse speech understanding performance than sequential stimulation. Focused thresholds correlated positively with the difference required to reach most comfortable level (MCL) between Sequential and Triplet strategies, an indirect measure of channel interaction. A significant offset effect (difference in dB between 50%-point for higher eCAP growth function slopes with two IPGs) was observed. No significant correlation was observed between the slopes for the two IPGs tested. None of the measures used in this study correlated with the differences in speech understanding scores between strategies.
conclusionsThe ENI measure based on behavioral focused thresholds could explain some of the difference in MCLs, but none of the ENI measures could explain the decrease in speech understanding with increasing pairs of simultaneously stimulated electrodes in processing strategies.
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.