ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2024
Comparison of Speech Perception Performance According to Prosody Change Between People With Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCochlear implants (CIs) are well known to improve audibility and speech recognition in individuals with hearing loss, but some individuals still struggle with many aspects in communication, such as prosody. This study explores how prosodic elements are perceived by those with normal hearing (NH) and CIs. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThirteen individuals with NH and thirteen CI users participated in this study and completed speech perception, speech prosody perception, speech prosody production, pitch difference discrimination, and melodic contour perception testing.
resultsNH listeners performed significantly better than CI users on speech perception, speech prosody perception (except for words with neutral meaning and a negative prosody change and when words were repeated twice), pitch difference discrimination, and melodic contour perception testing. No statistical significance was observed for speech prosody production for both groups.
conclusionsCompared to NH listeners, CI users had limited ability to recognize prosodic elements. The study findings highlight the necessity of an assessment tool and signal processing algorithm for CIs, specifically targeting prosodic elements in clinical settings.
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.