Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40095543›Full record

ReviewTrends in hearing

Limitations on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Users: A Compilation of Viewpoints.

Robert P Carlyon, John M Deeks, Bertrand Delgutte, Yoojin Chung, Maike Vollmer, Frank W Ohl, Andrej Kral, Jochen Tillein, Ruth Y Litovsky, Jan Schnupp and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Treating Hearing Loss: From Cochlear Implantation to Gene Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  10. A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors.

Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6166-501X
John M DeeksCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Bertrand DelgutteEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-9608
Yoojin ChungEaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-5308
Maike VollmerDepartment of Experimental Audiology, University Clinic of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2227-5104
Frank W OhlLeibniz Institute for Neurobiology (LIN), Magdeburg, Germany.
Andrej KralInstitute of Audio-Neuro-Technology & Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7762-4642
Jochen TilleinClinics of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, J.W.Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ruth Y LitovskyWaisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Jan SchnuppGerald Choa Neuroscience Institute and Department of Otolaryngology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (NB Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region) of China.
Nicole Rosskothen-KuhlNeurobiological Research Laboratory, Section for Experimental and Clinical Otology, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Raymond L GoldsworthyAuditory Research Center, Caruso Department of Otolaryngology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

NEURAL CODING OF SPEECHR01DC002258 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI DELGUTTE, BERTRAND · 1995 to 2022
$8.0M
Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Physiology and PsychophysicsR01DC005775 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI DELGUTTE, BERTRAND · 2003 to 2018
$6.9M
Encoding Temporal Fine Structure for Cochlear ImplantsR01DC018044 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI RAYMOND L GOLDSWORTHY · 2020 to 2026
$3.7M
Binaural processing and hearing in children with cochlear implantsR01DC020355 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Ruth Y Litovsky · 2023 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC002258NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005775NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC018044NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) users are usually poor at using timing information to detect changes in either pitch or sound location. This deficit occurs even for listeners with good speech perception and even when the speech processor is bypassed to present simple, idealized stimuli to one or more electrodes. The present article presents seven expert opinion pieces on the likely neural bases for these limitations, the extent to which they are modifiable by sensory experience and training, and the most promising ways to overcome them in future. The article combines insights from physiology and psychophysics in cochlear-implanted humans and animals, highlights areas of agreement and controversy, and proposes new experiments that could resolve areas of disagreement.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesSpeech PerceptionTime PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAnimalsHumansPitch PerceptionSound LocalizationTime Factorscochlear implantinter-aural time differencepitch perception/ localizationplasticity

Identifiers

PMID40095543
PMCPMC12076235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.