ArticleHearing research2023
Differences in neural encoding of speech in noise between cochlear implant users with and without preserved acoustic hearing.
Article in Hearing research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cortical oscillations predict auditory grouping in listeners with various hearing configurations.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Cortical oscillations predict auditory grouping in listeners with and without hearing loss.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Dexamethasone-eluting cochlear implants reduce inflammation and foreign body response in human and murine cochleae.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Individual Noise-Tolerance Profiles and Neural Signal-to-Noise Ratio: Insights into Predicting Speech-in-Noise Performance and Noise-Reduction Outcomes.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Photografted Zwitterionic Hydrogel Coating Durability for Reduced Foreign Body Response to Cochlear Implants.ACS applied bio materials · 2024Article
- Decreasing the physical gap in the neural-electrode interface and related concepts to improve cochlear implant performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) have evolved to combine residual acoustic hearing with electric hearing. It has been expected that CI users with residual acoustic hearing experience better speech-in-noise perception than CI-only listeners because preserved acoustic cues aid unmasking speech from background noise. This study sought neural substrate of better speech unmasking in CI users with preserved acoustic hearing compared to those with lower degree of acoustic hearing. Cortical evoked responses to speech in multi-talker babble noise were compared between 29 Hybrid (i.e., electric acoustic stimulation or EAS) and 29 electric-only CI users. The amplitude ratio of evoked responses to speech and noise, or internal SNR, was significantly larger in the CI users with EAS. This result indicates that CI users with better residual acoustic hearing exhibit enhanced unmasking of speech from background noise.
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.