ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2026
Comparing the Effects of Frequency Maps on Sentence Perception Between Simulated Bimodal Hearing and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2026. 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
purposeUsing acoustic simulations of bimodal (BM) and electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) hearing, we investigated if optimal frequency maps differ between these configurations, whether one provides greater benefit, and whether optimal maps vary with the degree of residual hearing.
methodAdults with normal hearing completed sentence perception tasks across frequency maps, simulated hearing configurations (BM vs. EAS), simulated residual hearing bandwidths, and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Acoustic stimulation was simulated with three bandpass filters: 50-250 Hz (A250), 50-500 Hz (A500), and 50-750 Hz (A750). Electric stimulation was simulated with an eight-channel vocoder. The lower boundary of the electric input was shifted to create four maps relative to the acoustic bandwidth: full overlap, narrow overlap (NO), meet, and gap.
resultsFor BM hearing, the meet map was most effective. For EAS, gap and NO maps yielded the greatest benefits in noise, whereas the meet map performed best in quiet. Optimal maps varied with both residual hearing and SNR. EAS generally outperformed BM hearing at A500 across SNRs, whereas BM hearing performed better at A250 and A750 at -6 dB, and at A750 in quiet. Benefits correlated positively with residual hearing bandwidth.
conclusionsOptimal maps differed between EAS and BM hearing, reflecting distinct acoustic-electric interactions. EAS often provided an advantage, likely due to reduced neural delay mismatches and improved binaural integration. However, no single map was consistently optimal; outcomes depended on residual hearing and SNR, highlighting variability in spectral integration efficiency with available acoustic input.
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.