ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Evolving perspectives on speech perception assessment in adults with cochlear implants: Are we using the right tests?
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
- Beyond speech perception: contemporary landscape of language agnostic hearing assessment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
From the pioneering days of cochlear implants (CIs) more than half a century ago until the present time, speech perception outcomes remain a broadly recognized benchmark of CI success. However, speech test scores alone do not directly map onto individual patients' aural communication needs. Rather, speech tests provide a relatively time-efficient way to assess specific aspects of everyday speech processing abilities. We review how speech perception testing has evolved in the United States of America since the early days of CIs and critically examine its current clinical roles: (1) establishing CI candidacy, (2) measuring benefit post-CI, and (3) pinpointing specific perceptual deficits to guide counseling, rehabilitation, or programming changes. We further consider: (a) factors that have driven changes in how speech perception has been evaluated over time, (b) approaches to selecting outcome measures of speech perception and interpretation of outcomes, (c) the role that speech perception plays in the assessment of overall CI benefit and individualized rehabilitation, and (d) how test selection and conditions can influence CI care. We argue that conventional speech perception tests provide only a partial view of CI outcomes and call for more comprehensive, ecologically meaningful assessment approaches. We conclude with recommendations for selecting outcome measures that better reflect real-world communication demands and guide patient-centered care for adult CI users.
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.