ArticleIranian journal of child neurology2022
Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores.
Article in Iranian journal of child neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Many studies have suggested that cochlear implant (CI) users vary in terms of speech recognition in noise. Studies in this field attribute this variety partly to subcortical auditory processing. Studying speech-Auditory Brainstem Response (speech-ABR) provides good information about speech processing; thus, this work was designed to compare speech-ABR components between two groups of CI users with good and poor speech recognition in noise scores. Materials & Methods: The present study was conducted on two groups of CI users aged 8-10 years old. The first group (CI-good) consisted of 15 children with prelingual CI who had good speech recognition in noise performance. The second group (CI-poor) was matched with the first group, but they had poor speech recognition in noise performance. The speech-ABR test in a sound-field presentation was performed for all the participants. Results: The speech-ABR response showed more delay in C, D, E, F, O latencies in CI-poor than CI-good users (P <0.05), meanwhile no significant difference was observed in initial wave (V(t= -0.293, p= 0.771 and A (t= -1.051, p= 0.307). Analysis in spectral-domain showed a weaker representation of fundamental frequency as well as the first formant and high-frequency component of speech stimuli in the CI users with poor auditory performance. Conclusions: Results revealed that CI users who showed poor auditory performance in noise performance had deficits in encoding the periodic portion of speech signals at the brainstem level. Also, this study could be as physiological evidence for poorer pitch processing in CI users with poor speech recognition in noise performance.
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.