Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40394253›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2025

Low-frequency pitch sensitivity and speech perception performance in adult cochlear implant users fitted with fine structure strategies.

Patrizia Mancini, Yılmaz Odabaşı, Ginevra Portanova, Francesca Yoshie Russo, Giannicola Iannella, Hilal Dincer D'Alessandro

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Patrizia ManciniDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Yılmaz OdabaşıDepartment of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ginevra PortanovaDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca Yoshie RussoDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giannicola IannellaDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Hilal Dincer D'AlessandroDepartment of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey. dincer.hilal@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7320-6577

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCochlear implant (CI) users may perceive pitch changes via repetition rate (RP) and place-of-stimulation (PP) coding mechanisms. This study investigated whether CI users fitted with fine structure (FS) strategies can discriminate low-frequency (LF) pitch changes via RP and whether RP performers show better speech recognition than PP performers.

methodsThirty postlingually deafened adult CI users (15 unilateral, 15 bilateral) participated in this study. LF pitch discrimination linked to temporal fine structure (TFS) sensitivity was assessed with the Disharmonic Intonation test (A§E psychoacoustic test suite), while speech perception was evaluated with phonetically balanced words and everyday sentences (both in quiet and noise), and the Italian Matrix test (in adaptive mode).

resultsJust noticeable differences (JNDs) in RP performers were significantly better compared to PP JNDs (p < 0.001, r = 0.80). No significant differences were found between unilateral and bilateral CI users for LF pitch perception (p > 0.05). Within-group comparisons (better ear versus bilateral listening) revealed that better ear JNDs were not significantly different from the bilateral performance (p > 0.05), whereas significant bilateral benefit was observed for word recognition score (WRS) + 10 (p = 0.016, r = 1.00), WRS + 5 (p = 0.021, r = 1.00), and Matrix performance (p = 0.033, r = 0.80). Speech recognition in noise was significantly better in RP performers compared to PP performers across multiple tests, including WRS + 10 (p = 0.002, r = 0.90), WRS + 5 (p = 0.001, r = 0.90), and the Matrix test (p = 0.03, r = 0.60).

conclusionThese findings highlight the advantages of FS coding strategies in improving TFS sensitivity and speech perception in complex listening environments.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessPitch DiscriminationSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCochlear ImplantationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNoisePsychoacousticsTreatment OutcomeCochlear implantSpeech perceptionTemporal fine structureTemporal pitch, place pitch

Identifiers

PMID40394253
PMCPMC12518401

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.