Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42453039›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Impact of Presentation Order on Pitch Ranking Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Users and Normal-Hearing Listeners and Its Mitigation.

Carmen Marie Castañeda González, Manuela Huber, Florian Völk, Louis Teufel, Aulia Djamal, Linya Ruan, Skander Znaidi, Werner Hemmert, Sonja Karg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Carmen Marie Castañeda GonzálezBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6759-1250
Manuela HuberBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Florian VölkBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Louis TeufelBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-9965-7323
Aulia DjamalBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-1222-4584
Linya RuanBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-6917-7205
Skander ZnaidiBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Werner HemmertBio-Inspired Information Processing, Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2905-6118
Sonja KargBiomedical Engineering and Biosignal Processing, Technical University of Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesPitch DiscriminationPitch PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAuditory ThresholdCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychoacousticsYoung Adultcochlear implantspitchplace pitchprocedural biaspsychoacousticspsychophysicstime-order error

Identifiers

PMID42453039
PMCPMC13373434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.