Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37133499›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

Matching the pitch perception of the cochlear implanted ear with the contralateral ear in patients with single-sided deafness: a novel approach.

Tamás Ferenc Tóth, Adrienne Németh, Péter Bakó, Péter Révész, Imre Gerlinger, István Szanyi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tamás Ferenc TóthDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary. toth.tamas@pte.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0367-7175
Adrienne NémethDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary.
Péter BakóDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary.
Péter RévészDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary.
Imre GerlingerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary.
István SzanyiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, 2. Munkácsy M. Str., Pécs, 7621, Hungary.
University of Pecs · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSingle-sided deaf patients following cochlear implantation often compare the sound quality of their implanted ear with normal hearing. The interaural differences can result in dissatisfaction with speech comprehension and reduced time of usage of the speech processor; hence, prolonging auditory adaptation time. The proposed calibration method presented in this study demonstrates how the frequency distribution of the cochlear implant can be set to adequately approximate the pitch perception of the contralateral normal hearing ear towards improving speech intelligibility in a noisy environment.

methodsIn 12 postlingual single-sided deaf patients, subjective interaural pitch-matching was carried out to determine new central frequencies for the reallocation of the frequency bands of their speech processor (CP910, CP950 or CP1000, Cochlear, Australia). The patients were asked to compare the pitch of the tones presented to their normal hearing ear to the pitch of individual channels of their cochlear implant (CI522 or CI622, Cochlear, Australia). A third-degree polynomial curve was fit to the acquired matching frequencies to create the new frequency allocation table. Audiological measurements (free-field aided thresholds, speech reception thresholds, and monosyllabic word recognition score) in noise, together with a Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) questionnaire (short version of the original SSQ) results were evaluated prior to the pitch-matching procedure, and again, 2 weeks later.

resultsThe free-field aided thresholds of the patients showed no greater shift than ± 5 dB following the procedure; however, their monosyllabic word recognition score in noise improved significantly (mean - 9.58%, SD 4.98%, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001). The results of the SSQ12 questionnaire also showed significant improvement in speech intelligibility, sound localization, and sound quality (mean 0.96 points, SD 0.45 points, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001).

conclusionsMatching the pitch perception of the implanted cochlea with the sensation of the normal hearing contralateral ear, resulted in significant changes in the quality of hearing in patients with single-sided deafness. It is plausible the procedure can usher positive results in bimodal patients or following sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessSpeech PerceptionHumansPitch PerceptionSpeech IntelligibilityAuditory adaptationCochlear implantInteraural pitch-matchingSingle-sided deafness

Identifiers

PMID37133499
PMCPMC10562495
OpenAlexW4367834034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.