ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Localization performance of cochlear implant users with a real-time bilaterally-synchronized sound coding strategy that provides explicit interaural timing cues with mixed rates of stimulation.
Article 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.
- Best cochlear locations for delivering interaural timing cues in electric hearing.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Auditory Motion Perception by Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users With a Sound Coding Strategy that Synchronizes Peak-Picking Across the Ears.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) do not restore sound localization abilities to the full extent exhibited by typical hearing (TH) listeners, partly due to poor encoding of interaural time differences (ITDs). ITD cues have been provided and investigated using synchronized research processors that ensure the precise delivery of ITD cues. These studies have been conducted in a direct stimulation setting, which bypasses the processor microphones and, in most cases, removes interaural level difference cues (ILDs). To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated the efficacy of synchronized stimulation in restoring sensitivity to ITDs in a free field localization experiment. This was made possible by the CCi-MOBILE, a portable and real-time processing research platform that allows for synchronizing microphone inputs. Methods: Fourteen BiCI listeners were tested with experimental real-time coding strategies in comparison to unsynchronized clinical processors. We calculated the binaural cues from the acoustic stimuli at the level of microphone input. Results: The recordings show that the experimental coding strategies in this study deliver ITDs with greater precision than the clinical strategy. However, psychophysical testing did not show the benefit of an ITD-encoding strategy in improving localization in a free field. The ITD encoding strategies preserved ITDs, which better differentiated unique loudspeaker locations than interaural level differences (ILDs), suggesting that listeners could achieve improved performance if they accessed these cues. As expected, ILDs were similar across all strategies, including the ITD encoding strategies. The lack of improvement in localization performance is likely because ILDs remained to be the dominant cue in acute localization testing, even when ITD cues were available. Discussion: Providing BiCI listeners with adequate experiences with ITD cues may be necessary to shift their reliance from ILD dominance to a combined reliance on ILD and ITD cues in free-field conditions. The CCi-MOBILE could enable take-home practice with novel stimulation strategies for extended experiences and long-term evaluation in real-world listening environments.
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.