ArticleHNO2024
Speech perception in modulated noise assessed in bimodal CI users.
Article in HNO, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simplified Matrix Sentence Test for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Fitting: Single Institution Experience.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Enhancing Cochlear Implant Outcomes across Age Groups: The Interplay of Forward Focus and Advanced Combination Encoder Coding Strategies in Noisy Conditions.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
backgroundAlthough good speech perception in quiet is achievable with cochlear implants (CIs), speech perception in noise is severely impaired compared to normal hearing (NH). In the case of a bimodal CI fitting with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear, the amount of residual acoustic hearing influences speech perception in noise.
objectiveThe aim of this work was to investigate speech perception in noise in a group of bimodal CI users and compare the results to age-matched HA users and people without subjective hearing loss, as well as with a young NH group. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudy participants comprised 19 bimodal CI users, 39 HA users, and 40 subjectively NH subjects in the age group 60-90 years and 14 young NH subjects. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise were adaptively measured using the Oldenburg Sentence Test for the two spatial test conditions S0N0 (speech and noise from the front) and multisource-noise field (MSNF; speech from the front, four spatially distributed noise sources) in continuous noise of the Oldenburg Sentence Test (Ol-noise) and amplitude-modulated Fastl noise (Fastl-noise).
resultsWith increasing hearing loss, the median SRT worsened significantly in all conditions. In test condition S0N0, the SRT of the CI group was 5.6 dB worse in Ol-noise than in the young NH group (mean age 26.4 years) and 22.5 dB worse in Fastl-noise; in MSNF, the differences were 6.6 dB (Ol-noise) and 17.3 dB (Fastl-noise), respectively. In the young NH group, median SRT in condition S0N0 improved by 11 dB due to gap listening; in the older NH group, SRTs improved by only 3.1 dB. In the HA and bimodal CI groups there was no gap listening effect and SRTs in Fastl-noise were even worse than in Ol-noise.
conclusionWith increasing hearing loss, speech perception in modulated noise is even more impaired than in continuous 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.