ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2023
Residual Hearing Does Not Influence the Effectiveness of Beamforming when Using a Cochlear Implant in Conjunction with Contralateral Routing of Signals.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning Effects of the Dutch/Flemish Matrix Test for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2026Article
- The Benefit of Bimodal Hearing and Beamforming for Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContralateral routing of signals (CROS) overcomes the head shadow effect by redirecting speech signals from the contralateral ear to the better-hearing cochlear implant (CI) ear. Here we tested the performance of an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB) and a fixed binaural beamformer (BB) using the CROS system of Advanced Bionics.
methodsIn a group of 17 unilateral CI users, we evaluated the benefits of MB and BB for speech recognition by measuring speech reception threshold (SRT) with and without beamforming. MB and BB were additionally evaluated with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements using a KEMAR manikin. We also assessed the effect of residual hearing in the CROS ear on the benefits of MB and BB. Speech was delivered in front of the listener in a background of homogeneous 8-talker babble noise.
resultsWith CI-CROS in omnidirectional settings with the T-mic active on the CI as a reference, BB significantly improved SRT by 1.4 dB, whereas MB yielded no significant improvements. The difference in effects on SRT between the two beamformers was, however, not significant. SNR effects were substantially larger, at 2.1 dB for MB and 5.8 dB for BB. CI-CROS with default omnidirectional settings also improved SRT and SNR by 1 dB over CI alone. Residual hearing did not significantly affect beamformer performance. DISCUSSION: We recommend the use of BB over MB for CI-CROS users. Residual hearing in the CROS ear is not a limiting factor for fitting a CROS device, although a bimodal option should be considered.
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.