ArticleHearing research2022
Combining Place and Rate of Stimulation Improves Frequency Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weighting of Spectral and Temporal Cues with n-of-m Cochlear Implant Strategies Depends on Voice Pitch.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Temporal pitch matching with bilateral cochlear implants.JASA express letters · 2024Article
- Estimating Pitch Information From Simulated Cochlear Implant Signals With Deep Neural Networks.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Relationship of Pitch Discrimination with Segregation of Tonal and Speech Streams for Cochlear Implant Users.Trends in hearingArticle
- Limitations on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Users: A Compilation of Viewpoints.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the auditory system, frequency is represented as tonotopic and temporal response properties of the auditory nerve. While these response properties are inextricably linked in normal hearing, cochlear implants can separately excite tonotopic location and temporal synchrony using different electrodes and stimulation rates, respectively. This separation allows for the investigation of the contributions of tonotopic and temporal cues for frequency discrimination. The present study examines frequency discrimination in adult cochlear implant users as conveyed by electrode position and stimulation rate, separately and combined. The working hypothesis is that frequency discrimination is better provided by place and rate cues combined compared to either cue alone. This hypothesis was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment, frequency discrimination needed for melodic contour identification was measured for frequencies near 100, 200, and 400 Hz using frequency allocation modeled after clinical processors. In the second experiment, frequency discrimination for pitch ranking was measured for frequencies between 100 and 1600 Hz using an experimental frequency allocation designed to provide better access to place cues. The results of both experiments indicate that frequency discrimination is better with place and rate cues combined than with either cue alone. These results clarify how signal processing for cochlear implants could better encode frequency into place and rate of electrical stimulation. Further, the results provide insight into the contributions of place and rate cues for pitch.
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.