ArticleScientific reports2025
Acoustic simulation of cochlear implant sound to approximate the perceptual experience of electric hearing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A digital audio workstation approach for matching the sound quality of speech and music for single-sided deaf patients fit with cochlear implants.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The electrical signal processing of cochlear implants (CIs) is thought to partially explain the unnatural and unfamiliar sound impressions in recipients. To date, there are no accurate German-language sound samples available that represent how CI users perceive their CIs. The primary aim of this study was to create German-language sound samples for the sound of Cochlear Nucleus implants (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia). Furthermore, we investigated whether the simulation parameters best matched for one sentence were also accurate approximations of the CI sound when applied to two further sentences spoken by the same male speaker. Fifteen patients with single-sided deafness who had at least two years of experience with their CI were included in this study. The participants rated ten simulations based on the similarity to the sound perceived with their devices. The simulation with the best similarity score served as the starting point for optimization using a software sound-tool. On average, a score of 9.7 ± 0.5 on a scale of 1 (no similarity) to 10 (signals are identical) was achieved for the optimized simulations. Most often, a low-pass filter or a comb filter was required to optimize the simulation. The sound samples optimized for each study participant are provided in the Supplemental Material. When the parameters of the optimized simulation were applied to two further sentences (variable in content and phonemes), the similarity scores were significantly worse (mean sentence 2: 8.4 ± 1.5, Z = 3.015, p = 0.003, mean sentence 3: 8.9 ± 1.3, sign test: Z = 2.268, p = 0.048). However, when the similarity scores were considered individually for each participant, there were 4 (sentence 2) or 7 (sentence 3) participants, respectively, for whom the speech material had no influence on the similarity score.
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.