Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567461›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Individual variation in suprasegmental perception: insights from adults with typical hearing and cochlear implants.

Terrin N Tamati, Erin M Ingvalson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Terrin N TamatiDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Erin M IngvalsonDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

Beyond Clinical Measures: Auditory-Social Experience and Robust Communication Skills in Adults Following Cochlear ImplantationR21DC019382 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI TAMATI, TERRIN NICHOLE · 2022 to 2024
$634k
NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC019382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals vary in their ability to perceive suprasegmental cues, such as pitch, intensity, and duration, to make linguistic and nonlinguistic judgments, such as lexical stress, intonation, talker identity, and vocal emotion perception. For adult cochlear implant (CI) users, limitations in pitch perception significantly impair linguistic and nonlinguistic suprasegmental perception, creating barriers to effective real-world communication. While device-related factors are often emphasized in explaining variability in CI outcomes, growing evidence suggests that cognitive-linguistic factors play a critical role in shaping pitch-based suprasegmental perception. In this Perspective, we examine how cognitive-linguistic and experiential factors influence suprasegmental perception in both typically hearing listeners and adult CI users. We argue that these listener-level differences are essential to understanding variability in CI outcomes, offering insight beyond the effects of device limitations. We propose shifting from group-level generalizations to tailored rehabilitation strategies that target individual needs. Potential approaches include segmental speech training, auditory-cognitive training, and targeted pitch perception training. By identifying malleable sources of individual variation, we aim to support more personalized strategies to improve suprasegmental perception for both typically-hearing and hearing-impaired adults.

Indexed as

cochlear implantsemotion perceptionindividual variationsuprasegmental perceptiontalker identification

Identifiers

PMID41567461
PMCPMC12815720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.