ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Differences in consonant confusion patterns between bimodal cochlear implant users with greater and less bimodal advantage.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: The variability in bimodal advantage among bimodal users remains a significant challenge in clinical approaches. This study compared confusion patterns in consonant recognition between bimodal users who received greater bimodal advantage (GBA) and those who received less bimodal advantage (LBA), aiming to clarify these patterns in order to identify underlying causes that can help improve speech perception for all users. Methods: Confusion matrices were measured monaurally and binaurally in both quiet and noisy conditions. Twenty-one subjects were divided into GBA ( Results: By analyzing consonant confusion patterns, the study identifies distinct listening strategies that differentiate GBA and LBA groups. Spectral integration was observed on /ga/, /ma/, /fa/, /ʃa/, /va/, /za/, and /ʤa/ for the GBA group but only on /ga/ and /za/ for the LBA group. Spectral interference was observed on /na/ for the GBA group, but on /ba/, /da/, /pa/, /ta/, /ka/, /ma/, /sa/, and /ʤa/ for the LBA group. Cochlear implant (CI)-ear dominance occurred on /ba/, /da/, /pa/, /ta/, /ka/, and /sa/ for the GBA group and on /na/, /fa/, /ʃa/, and /va/ for the LBA group. Conclusion: These findings suggest that individual differences in speech perception among bimodal users reflect how each individual combines input from both ears. Three distinct listening strategies emerged: spectral integration, spectral interference, and CI-ear dominance. Users with greater advantage were more successful at integrating complementary inputs across ears, while others experienced conflicting auditory inputs or mainly relied on their CI ear. These results highlight the importance of looking beyond overall speech scores and focusing on specific speech sound patterns to understand why some bimodal users benefit more than others. By identifying the roles of listening strategies in consonant perception, we can better explain individual variability and improve clinical approaches to hearing device fitting.
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.