ArticleAudiology research2025
Questioning the Usefulness of Stimulation Rate Changes to Optimize Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Audiology research, 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
Abstract
Research exploring the impact of stimulation rate modifications on perception in cochlear implant users continues to expand. The existing body of research remains contradictory, making it difficult to establish a clear consensus that could inform clinical recommendations. In this context, this article aims to question the usefulness of such adjustments as a clinical intervention beyond the initial fitting, particularly for optimizing non-speech processing. To do so, we combined an overview of the existing literature on the effects of stimulation-rate changes on speech and non-speech processing with a discussion of observational data. The current evidence base is sparse, often contradictory, and affected by interoperability challenges that limit cross-study comparability. Consequently, it is not possible to formulate robust, evidence-based clinical recommendations at this time. Clinicians should be cautious about implementing stimulation-rate adjustments beyond the initial fitting and should wait for more robust evidence to emerge before considering such changes.
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.