ArticleScientific reports2025
Neural markers of attention processing in pediatric cochlear implant users: an ERP study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
The current study examined the neural mechanisms underlying auditory outcomes in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) users using event-related potentials, focusing on the frontocentral Novelty P3 (indexing automatic attention) and the parietal Target P3 (reflecting controlled attention). By comparing CI children with normal-hearing peers, we aimed to elucidate how these attention mechanisms contribute to post-implantation auditory performance variability. Prelingually deaf children with early bilateral CIs (n = 25) and normal-hearing (NH) controls (n = 28), matched for gender and age (7-13 years), completed an oddball paradigm during ERP recording and performed speech-in-noise and memory tasks. CI users showed reduced Novelty P3 amplitudes compared to NH peers, suggesting impaired automatic attention mechanisms, while Target P3 amplitudes were comparable between groups, indicating preserved controlled attention. CI users demonstrated poorer performance on speech-in-noise recognition and forward digit span tasks. Larger Novelty P3 and Target P3 amplitudes both correlated positively with speech-in-noise performance across all participants. In contrast, in CI users specifically, Target P3 amplitudes showed positive associations with short-term memory performance. This study provides novel evidence that pediatric CI users exhibit reduced automatic attention shifting in response to acoustic changes while maintaining intact controlled attention processes that may serve as a compensatory mechanism. The neural markers' associations with behavioral performance suggest potential intervention targets: rehabilitation efforts might focus on strengthening automatic attention shifting while leveraging preserved controlled attention pathways.
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.