ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating binaural hearing capabilities in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss through bilateral bone conduction stimulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates: Bilateral Traditional vs. Expanded Indications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Interference Pattern Caused by Bilateral Bone Conduction Stimulation Impairs Sound Localization.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of bilateral bone conduction (BC) stimulation and sensorineural hearing loss on spatial release from masking, binaural intelligibility level difference, and lateralization. The study involved two groups of adults with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss: one group of 21 participants with symmetric hearing loss and another group of nine participants with asymmetric hearing loss. All tests were conducted through BC and air conduction (AC) headsets with non-individualized virtual positions of the sound sources and linear amplification based on individual hearing thresholds. The findings revealed a bilateral benefit for both groups of hearing-impaired individuals, with symmetric hearing loss yielding better results than asymmetric hearing loss. AC stimulation provided approximately twice the benefit in terms of dB compared to BC stimulation. A large part of this benefit originated from a favorable signal-to-noise ratio due to noise reduction from the head shadow. However, binaural processing was present in both hearing-impaired groups with bilateral BC stimulation. The ability to lateralize sounds based on interaural time delays was significantly impaired in participants with both types of hearing loss when stimulation was by BC. Despite these challenges, the study underscores the benefits of bilateral fitting of BC hearing aids, even in individuals with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss, whether symmetric or asymmetric.
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.