ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2024
Interactions Between Slopes of Residual Hearing and Frequency Maps in Simulated Bimodal and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 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.
- Effects of F1-F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- State-of-the-Art on the Impact of Bimodal Acoustic Stimulation on Speech Perception in Noise in Adults: A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to determine the effects of residual hearing slopes and cochlear implant frequency map settings on bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) benefits in speech perception.
methodAdults with normal hearing were recruited for simulated bimodal and EAS hearing. Sentence perception was measured unilaterally and bilaterally. For the acoustic stimulation, three slopes of high-frequency hearing loss were created using low-pass filters with a cutoff frequency of 500 Hz: steep (96 dB/octave), medium (48 dB/octave), and shallow (24 dB/octave). For the electric stimulation, an eight-channel sinewave vocoder was used with an output frequency range (1000-7938 Hz) with three input frequency ranges to create frequency maps, overlap (188-7938 Hz), meet (500-7938 Hz), and gap (750-7938 Hz), relative to the cutoff frequency in the acoustic stimulation.
resultsThe largest bimodal/EAS benefit occurred with the shallow slope, and the smallest occurred with the steep slope. The effects of the slopes on bimodal/EAS benefit were greatest with the meet or gap map and the least with the overlap map. EAS benefit was greater than bimodal benefit at higher signal-to-noise ratios regardless of frequency map.
conclusionsThe results indicate that correlation between bimodal/EAS benefit and residual hearing could potentially improve if slopes were considered. The optimal frequency map differed with different slopes, suggesting that the slopes of residual hearing should be carefully considered in fitting bimodal and EAS hearing. EAS hearing provided greater benefit over bimodal hearing, suggesting that spectrotemporal integration was better within one ear (i.e., EAS) than across ears (i.e., bimodal).
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.