ArticleTrends in hearing
Impact of Presentation Order on Pitch Ranking Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Users and Normal-Hearing Listeners and Its Mitigation.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate pitch perception in cochlear implants (CIs) remains challenging, making psychophysical measures susceptible to procedural biases. In unilateral pitch ranking, subjects judge which of two successive stimuli is higher in pitch, typically yielding electrode order roughly consistent with tonotopy. In our study with 10 MED-EL CI users, each of the 12 electrodes was compared with its three next neighbors. Pitch ranking was influenced by the presentation order of the electrode pairs. To investigate this effect, we tested 9 normal-hearing (NH) listeners using bandpass-filtered noise (6 dB/oct slopes) to approximate current spread during CI stimulation. Comparable performances across CI and NH in all three spacing conditions indicated similar pitch perception difficulty. On average, both groups discriminated 8 of 12 channels based solely on pitch (discriminability via d'), suggesting that 6 dB/oct slopes approximate mean monopolar current spread at the group level. Pitch rankings of adjacent channels exhibited biases. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between presentation order and stimulation site in both groups (CI: p = .003; NH: p < .001): pairs below the stimulus range midpoint were more often reported as descending, whereas pairs above the middle were more often reported as ascending. This asymmetric bias may reflect a context-dependent decision process in which subjects compare the second stimulus to a weighted average of the first and previously presented stimuli. Presentation-order effects were mitigated by testing stimulus pairs in isolation, at the expense of reduced randomization. Our findings highlight the importance of controlling biases to ensure reliable psychophysical measures.
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.