ArticleHNO2025
[Lost in translation-an investigation of listening effort and performance in cochlear implant users in first and foreign language settings].
Article in HNO, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSpeech comprehension in a foreign language under noise conditions presents an increased cognitive demand. For multilingual patients with cochlear implants (PwCI), this poses a particular challenge, as audiological routine diagnostics are typically conducted in the language of the clinical environment. This study investigates speech understanding in noise as well as the subjectively perceived listening effort in PwCI compared to normal-hearing (NH) individuals under both native and nonnative language conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsPwCI and NH completed the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) in both German and English. The SNR
resultsA total of 28 individuals with German as a first language and English as a foreign language (14 PwCI, 14 NH) were included. Among PwCI, the German version of the OLSA was significantly more intelligible than the English version (p = 0.010), whereas no significant difference was found for NH between language conditions. Listening effort was significantly higher during the English version of the OLSA in both PwCI (p = 0.003) and NH (p = 0.003). No correlation was found between self-assessed English language proficiency and perceived effort in either group.
conclusionThe significantly reduced performance of PwCI in their foreign language under noise conditions reflects the established finding that multilingual individuals experience greater difficulty understanding speech in noise. The additionally reduced automatization of linguistic processing as well as a limited use of top-down listening strategies, that is the use of prior knowledge, context and expectations to fill gaps in the acoustic signal, make understanding in the presence of background noise more difficult, which can lead to increased listening effort and more frequent comprehension gaps. These effects appear to be particularly pronounced in multilingual individuals. These results highlight the importance of individualized, linguistically and culturally sensitive approaches in the clinical management of PwCI.
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.