ArticleScientific reports2026
Alpha oscillatory activity reveals focused-attentional disparity between cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) allow hearing-impaired subjects to regain access to speech. However, the individual outcome variability remains high and unexplained. One contributing factor to the CI performance could be related to higher cognitive functions, which are not as well studied as in normal hearing (NH) populations. To study the cognitive processing in CI-users, in particular attentional processing, we compared the neural correlates of attention of a large cohort of CI-users (n = 37) to those of an age-matched group of NH-listeners (n = 37). The cognitive paradigm used here is a three-stimulus oddball paradigm in both passive and active listening conditions to isolate the attentional difference in unattended and attended task conditions. The addition of a third stimulus-type allowed us to specifically disentangling the attentional processing of task-relevant from the task-irrelevant stimuli. We expanded the previous ERP study by inspecting oscillatory activities. We localized the responsible brain areas and estimated local neural activities in three cortical regions: temporal transverse gyrus dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobule. We found alpha activity (8-12 Hz) to be the most relevant correlate of top-down auditory attention. The result on alpha activity suggests that CI-users may have directed their attention toward task-irrelevant stimuli, thereby impeding their focus on task-relevant stimuli. In sum, this study provides important insight into the cognitive attentional processing in CI-users; those may contribute in high listening effort and CI performance variability.
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.