ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2024
Auditory Localization Performance in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Single-Sided Deafness: The Challenges and Limitations of Current Outcome Metrics.
Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 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.
- Impact of Acute Versus Chronic Unilateral Hearing Loss on Head Movement in a Novel Binaural Task.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Comparing Bilateral and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Recipients in a Novel Speech-in-Noise and Localization Task.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
hypothesisAcoustic localization accuracy metrics currently employed in clinical literature both overestimate and underestimate performance benefit of cochlear implantation (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD).
backgroundAlthough localization in SSD with CI has been investigated, performance characterization has relied heavily on average error. Although attractively concise, this measure may misrepresent performance. Here, we characterize frequency-specific localization on a granular level in subjects with CI for SSD as a critical analysis of localization outcome metrics.
methodsEight CI recipients with SSD were recruited. Stimuli of broadband (BBN) and narrowband noise (NBN) at low (500 Hz), mid (1000 Hz), and high (4000 Hz) frequencies were presented in a semianechoic chamber. Localization accuracy was quantified in mean angular error (MAE) and linear regression slope.
resultsUse of a CI for SSD subjects improved localization performance by slope for all stimuli ( p ≤ 0.0033) to a level that was equal to normal-hearing controls at 1 and 4 kHz ( p ≥ 0.2281). MAE was also significantly improved for SSD subjects using CI for BBN stimuli ( p ≪ 0.0001); however, no statistically significant improvement in MAE was seen for NBN ( p ≥ 0.5773) with CI use. Descriptive analysis of individual subject performance highlights the reasons for contradictory results.
conclusionThere is inherent challenge in characterizing localization benefit for individuals with CI for SSD. Our data demonstrate the limitations of utilization of average error as the sole metric for outcome benefit. We emphasize the importance of continued research investigating alternative outcome measures as we work toward a more refined understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation for SSD.
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.