Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38398447›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024

Do Different Types of Microphones Affect Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Recipients? A Pupillometry Study.

Sara Ghiselli, Erica Pizzol, Vincenzo Vincenti, Enrico Fabrizi, Daria Salsi, Domenico Cuda

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara GhiselliDepartment of Otolaryngology, AUSL Piacenza, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1214-0807
Erica PizzolDepartment of Otolaryngology, AUSL Piacenza, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.
Vincenzo VincentiDepartment of Otolaryngology and Otoneurosurgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Enrico FabriziDepartment of Economics and Social Sciences, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.
Daria SalsiDepartment of Otolaryngology, AUSL Piacenza, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.
Domenico CudaDepartment of Otolaryngology, AUSL Piacenza, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2437-2872
Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Piacenza · ITUniversity of Parma · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is known that subjects with a cochlear implant (CI) need to exert more listening effort to achieve adequate speech recognition compared to normal hearing subjects. One tool for assessing listening effort is pupillometry. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive directional microphones in reducing listening effort for CI recipients.

methodsWe evaluated listening in noise and listening effort degree (by pupillometry) in eight bimodal subjects with three types of CI microphones and in three sound configurations.

resultsWe found a correlation only between sound configurations and listening in noise score (

conclusionsDifferent types of microphones have different effects on the listening of CI patients. The difference in the orientation of the sound source is a factor that has an impact on the listening effort results. However, the pupillometry measurements do not significantly correlate with the different microphone types.

Indexed as

cochlear implanthearing stimulationlistening effortpupillometrysignal processing

Identifiers

PMID38398447
PMCPMC10889176
OpenAlexW4391927940

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.