ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2025
Development and validation of a procedure to test perception of speech prosody in listeners with cochlear implants.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 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.
- Weighting of Spectral and Temporal Cues with n-of-m Cochlear Implant Strategies Depends on Voice Pitch.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Visual Gestures of the Head and Eyebrows Support Prosody Perception for Individuals with Cochlear Implants.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding vocal prosody is essential to successful communication. However, evaluations of speech recognition have relied heavily on word repetition-type tasks where success does not hinge on prosody perception, or where stimuli do not have enough prosodic variation to even test for this ability. Individuals who use cochlear implants (CIs) are at risk for poorer perception of prosody because of their limited access to pitch perception. This study used a multi-slider visual analog interface to measure perception of contrastive focus prosody in sentence-length stimuli by participants with CIs or with typical hearing (TH). Compared to TH listeners, CI users were more likely to misidentify which word had prosodic focus, as well as having weaker perception of prosodic focus, on average. Whereas TH listeners scaled their perceived strength of prosodic focus based on F0 and vowel intensity features, CI users scaled ratings in accordance with vowel intensity and vowel duration, with no relationship to F0. These results suggest that CI users are at risk of complete misperception of a talker's intended message, even in instances where there was no uncertainty about the words that were spoken.
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.