ArticleHNO2022
[Speech comprehension in noise-considerations for ecologically valid assessment of communication skills ability with cochlear implants. German version].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Audiometry and Ecological Validity: Exploring the Link Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Speech Testing in CI Users.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNowadays, cochlear implant (CI) patients mostly show good to very good speech comprehension in quiet, but there are known problems with communication in everyday noisy situations. There is thus a need for ecologically valid measurements of speech comprehension in real-life listening situations for hearing-impaired patients. The additional methodological effort must be balanced with clinical human and spatial resources. This study investigates possible simplifications of a complex measurement setup.
methodsThe study included 20 adults from long-term follow-up after CI fitting with postlingual onset of hearing impairment. The complexity of the investigated listening situations was influenced by changing the spatiality of the noise sources and the temporal characteristics of the noise. To compare different measurement setups, speech reception thresholds (SRT) were measured unilaterally with different CI processors and settings. Ten normal-hearing subjects served as reference.
resultsIn a complex listening situation with four loudspeakers, differences in SRT from CI subjects to the control group of up to 8 dB were found. For CI subjects, this SRT correlated with the situation with frontal speech signal and fluctuating interference signal from the side with R
conclusionThere is no universal solution for all audiometric questions with respect to the spatiality and temporal characteristics of noise sources. In the investigated context, simplification of the complex spatial audiometric setting while using fluctuating competing signals was possible.
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.