ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2022
Exceptional Speech Recognition Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation: Lessons From Two Case Studies.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extraordinary Speech and Language Outcomes After Auditory Brainstem Implantation: Guidance From a Case Study.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Using Complex Networks in the Hearing Sciences.Ear and 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIndividual differences and variability in outcomes following cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with hearing loss remain significant unresolved clinical problems. Case reports of specific individuals allow for detailed examination of the information processing mechanisms underlying variability in outcomes. Two adults who displayed exceptionally good postoperative CI outcomes shortly after activation were administered a novel battery of auditory, speech recognition, and neurocognitive processing tests.
methodA case study of two adult CI recipients with postlingually acquired hearing loss who displayed excellent postoperative speech recognition scores within 3 months of initial activation. Preoperative City University of New York sentence testing and a postoperative battery of sensitive speech recognition tests were combined with auditory and visual neurocognitive information processing tests to uncover their strengths, weaknesses, and milestones.
resultsPreactivation CUNY auditory-only (A) scores were < 5% correct while the auditory + visual (A + V) scores were > 74%. Acoustically with their CIs, both participants' scores on speech recognition, environmental sound identification and speech in noise tests exceeded average CI users scores by 1-2 standard deviations. On nonacoustic visual measures of language and neurocognitive functioning, both participants achieved above average scores compared with normal hearing adults in vocabulary knowledge, rapid phonological coding of visually presented words and nonwords, verbal working memory, and executive functioning.
conclusionsMeasures of multisensory (A + V) speech recognition and visual neurocognitive functioning were associated with excellent speech recognition outcomes in two postlingual adult CI recipients. These neurocognitive information processing domains may underlie the exceptional speech recognition performance of these two patients and offer new directions for research explaining variability in postimplant outcomes. Results further suggest that current clinical outcome measures should be expanded beyond the conventional speech recognition measures to include more sensitive robust tests of speech recognition as well as neurocognitive measures of working memory, vocabulary, lexical access, and executive functioning.
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.