ArticleTrends in hearing
The Relationship of Pitch Discrimination with Segregation of Tonal and Speech Streams for Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implant (CI) users often complain about music appreciation and speech recognition in background noise, which depend on segregating sound sources into perceptual streams. The present study examined relationships between frequency and fundamental frequency (F0) discrimination with stream segregation of tonal and speech streams for CI users and peers with no known hearing loss. Frequency and F0 discrimination were measured for 1,000 Hz pure tones and 110 Hz complex tones, respectively. Stream segregation was measured for pure and complex tones using a lead/lag delay detection task. Spondee word identification was measured in competing speech with high levels of informational masking that required listeners to use F0 to segregate speech. The hypotheses were that frequency and F0 discrimination would explain a significant portion of the variance in outcomes for tonal segregation and speech reception. On average, CI users received a large benefit for stream segregation of tonal streams when either the frequency or F0 of the competing stream was shifted relative to the target stream. A linear relationship accounted for 42% of the covariance between measures of stream segregation and complex tone discrimination for CI users. In contrast, such benefits were absent when the F0 of the competing speech was shifted relative to the target speech. The large benefit observed for tonal streams is promising for music listening if it transfers to separating instruments within a song; however, the lack of benefit for speech suggests separate mechanisms, or special requirements, for speech processing.
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.