ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear-implant (CI) users have previously demonstrated perceptual restoration, or successful repair of noise-interrupted speech, using the interrupted sentences paradigm [Bhargava, Gaudrain, and Başkent (2014). "Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users," Hear. Res. 309, 113-123]. The perceptual restoration effect was defined experimentally as higher speech understanding scores with noise-burst interrupted sentences compared to silent-gap interrupted sentences. For the perceptual restoration illusion to occur, it is often necessary for the masking or interrupting noise bursts to have a higher intensity than the adjacent speech signal to be perceived as a plausible masker. Thus, signal processing factors like noise reduction algorithms and automatic gain control could have a negative impact on speech repair in this population. Surprisingly, evidence that participants with cochlear implants experienced the perceptual restoration illusion was not observed across the two planned experiments. A separate experiment, which aimed to provide a close replication of previous work on perceptual restoration in CI users, also found no consistent evidence of perceptual restoration, contrasting the original study's previously reported findings. Typical speech repair of interrupted sentences was not observed in the present work's sample of CI users, and signal-processing factors did not appear to affect speech repair.
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.