ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2025
Effects of F1-F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2025. 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.
- Differences in consonant confusion patterns between bimodal cochlear implant users with greater and less bimodal advantage.Frontiers in psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to measure the effects of frequency spacing (i.e., F2 minus F1) on spectral integration for vowel perception in simulated bilateral electric-acoustic stimulation (BiEAS), electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), and bimodal hearing.
methodTwenty listeners with typical hearing participated in synthetic vowel recognition. Four vowels were used with varying frequency spacings (/ͻ/: 270 Hz, /ʊ/: 653 Hz, /æ/: 1040 Hz, and /I/: 1607 Hz). F1 was acoustically simulated with a band-pass filtering, while F2 was electrically simulated using an eight-channel sine wave vocoder with matched input and output frequency range. Vowel recognition was measured in five listening conditions: BiEAS (F1 and F2 in both ears), EAS (F1 and F2 in the left ear), bimodal (F1 and F2 in opposite ears), cochlear implant alone (F2 alone in the left ear), and hearing aid alone (F1 alone in the left ear).
resultsIn EAS, spectral integration was significantly better at a 270-Hz spacing, while in bimodal hearing, spectral integration was significantly poorer at a 1607-Hz frequency compared to other frequency spacings. BiEAS conditions offered the best spectral integration, regardless of frequency spacing. Vowel confusion remained consistent and below chance level across the first three listening conditions. Bimodal interference occurred for the /I/ vowel when the cochlear implant ear perceives the dominant cue and the hearing aid ear perceives the nondominant cue. The F2 place cue is transmitted significantly better than the F1 height cue in BiEAS, EAS, and bimodal conditions.
conclusionsEAS and bimodal hearing integrates narrower frequency ranges better than wider spacings. EAS hearing provided greater outcomes over bimodal hearing, suggesting that within-ear (EAS) integration is more effective than across-ear (bimodal) integration. Bimodal interference may be a factor for variability in bimodal performance. Cautious interpretation and further research with real EAS and bimodal users are suggested to validate and extend these findings. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28127249.
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.