ArticleThe Journal of physiology2026
Neurophysiological sensitivity to envelope and pulse timing interaural time differences in cochlear implanted rats with different hearing experiences.
Article in The Journal of physiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) have successfully restored hearing in more than one million patients with severe to profound hearing loss worldwide. Although CIs effectively restore speech perception in quiet environments, sound localization remains challenging for bilateral CI users, particularly their ability to utilize interaural time differences (ITDs). The majority of clinical CI processors use a coding strategy that encodes ITD information only in the envelope of electrical pulse trains rather than their pulse timing, which may contribute to the poorer spatial hearing perception of CI users. We recently demonstrated in a behavioural study on early deafened, bilaterally CI-implanted rats that pulse timing ITDs completely dominate ITD perception, whereas sensitivity to envelope ITDs is almost negligible in comparison. Building on this, we here investigated the neurophysiological sensitivity of the inferior colliculus (IC) to envelope and pulse timing ITDs at two different pulse rates (900 and 4500 pulses/s) and three different stimulation modulations (5, 20 and 100 Hz) in CI rats with different hearing experiences. Our results indicate that IC neurons exhibit far greater sensitivity to pulse timing ITD than envelope ITD independent of pulse rate, modulation rate or hearing experience. These findings suggest that to improve binaural hearing outcomes in bilateral CI users, clinical stimulation strategies should provide informative pulse timing ITDs. KEY POINTS: Current bilateral cochlear implants mostly provide time cues of arriving sound in the envelope of stimulation rather than in the timing of pulses. A behavioural study on cochlear implanted rats has shown that pulse timing dominates binaural hearing. Here we examined the neural sensitivity to independent changes in time cues presented on the envelope or pulse timing, respectively, in rats with bilateral cochlear implants and different hearing experiences. Auditory midbrain neurons were consistently more sensitive to changes in pulse timing rather than envelope, irrespective of stimulus pulse rate, modulation rate or an animal's hearing experience.
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.