Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39666319›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2025

Frequency-to-Place Mismatch and Cochlear Implant Outcomes by Electrode Type.

Andrea DeFreese, Katelyn Berg, Jack Noble, Benoit Dawant, Jourdan Holder, Susan Amberg, Christine Brown, Emily Burg, Nichole Dwyer, Allyson Sisler-Dinwiddie and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluation of manual and robot-assisted electrode placement in malformed cochleae using imaging-based patient specific 3D models.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

22 authors.

Andrea DeFreeseDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Katelyn BergDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jack NobleDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Benoit DawantDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jourdan HolderDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Susan AmbergDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Christine BrownDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Emily BurgDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Nichole DwyerDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Allyson Sisler-DinwiddieDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tayler SparrowDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Linsey SunderhausDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Stephanie YarasDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Marc BennettDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Taha JanDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Aaron MoberlyDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Matthew O'MalleyDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Ankita PatroDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Elizabeth PerkinsDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Kareem TawfikDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
David HaynesDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
René GiffordDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Speech recognition outcomes with a cochlear implant (CI) are highly variable. One factor suggested to correlate with CI-aided speech recognition is frequency-to-place mismatch, or the discrepancy between the natural tonotopic organization of the cochlea and the electric frequency allocation of the CI electrodes within the patient's cochlea. Objective: To evaluate the association between frequency-to-place mismatch and speech recognition outcomes in a large cohort of postlingually deafened adult CI users, while controlling for various clinical factors known to be associated with those outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from a CI program at a tertiary medical center and included CIs from postlingually deafened adult CI users. After excluding patients whose data were not logged, patients with implantations occurring between 2016 and 2023 were included in the analysis. The data were extracted in November 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word recognition test measured in the CI-aided alone condition 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after activation served as the main outcome. The independent variables included frequency-to-place mismatch, electrode array type, mean modiolar distance, electrode position, age at implantation, biological sex, contralateral hearing abilities, time since CI activation (test interval), and daily device use. Results: In 498 CIs from 447 postlingually deafened adults (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [17.1] years; 271 [54.4%] CIs with male users), frequency-to-place mismatch was negatively correlated with CI-aided speech recognition outcomes, but the association was only significant for precurved electrode arrays and not straight electrode arrays. In the linear mixed effects model for straight electrode arrays, only test interval (β = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.90-1.38]) and daily device use (β = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.42-1.38]) were correlated with the improvement of word recognition over the first year of device use. In the model for precurved electrode arrays, mismatch at 1500 Hz (β = -0.011 [95% CI, -0.011 to -0.006]), scalar location (β = 16.37 [95% CI, 9.01 to 23.74]), test interval (β = 1.18 [95% CI, 1.18-1.41]) and daily device use (β = 1.65 [95% CI, 1.15-2.14]) all were significantly associated with the improvement of word recognition over the first year of device use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of postlingually deafened adult CI users, including both straight and precurved electrode arrays, daily device use and time since CI activation were found to be significantly associated with improved CI-aided speech recognition outcomes. Frequency-to-place mismatch at 1500 Hz and scalar location were associated with word recognition only for precurved arrays. These findings suggest that, for patients with straight arrays, any interference produced by frequency-to-place mismatch may be overcome by adaptation, which could be supported by daily device use. However, for patients with precurved arrays, daily device use may not be sufficient to completely overcome electrode placement factors, including scalar location and mismatch.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessElectrodes, ImplantedSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39666319
PMCPMC11826361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.