ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2025
Temporal Pitch Perception of Multi-Channel Stimuli by Cochlear-Implant Users.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chronic Auditory-Nerve Implant Enhances Brainstem Phase Locking to Electric Pulse Trains.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
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
purposeTo explore the feasibility of cochlear-implant (CI) processing strategies that aim to improve pitch perception by presenting information on the stimulus temporal fine structure (TFS) in low-frequency channels to the corresponding apical electrodes.
methodsEight users of the MED-EL CI pitch-ranked stimuli consisting of isochronous pulse trains presented concurrently to the four most apical CI electrodes.
resultsWhen the same rate was applied to all electrodes, pitch ranks increased with increasing rates up to 200-300 pulses-per-second (pps), consistent with previous research. Presenting rates of 100, 200, 300, and 400 pps to one electrode per rate produced a pitch rank between that of the 100- and 200-pps same-rate stimuli. The assignation of pulse rate to electrode did not have a consistent effect on pitch ranks. However, maximising the delay between pulses on the different electrodes generally produced higher pitch ranks compared to when the between-electrode pulse delay was very short.
conclusionOur results show no evidence that listeners combine the rates of TFS applied to different channels so as to estimate the fundamental frequency but do show that pitch can be affected by between-electrode delays. We conclude that presenting different temporal patterns to adjacent electrodes is unlikely to produce a clear and robust pitch and propose an alternative method for conveying the F0 of complex sounds on multiple electrodes of a CI.
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.