Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564862›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

Ten years of research on the sound quality of cochlear implants.

Michael F Dorman, Sarah C Natale, Joshua S Stohl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Michael F DormanArizona State University, College of Health Solutions, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Sarah C NataleArizona State University, College of Health Solutions, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Joshua S StohlMED-EL North American Research Laboratory, Durham, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report summarizes data collected over the span of more than a decade from four laboratories on the sound quality of cochlear implants. Sixteen projects (ten published and six unpublished) are summarized; two video and eleven audio files accompany the summaries. Fourteen of the projects used single sided deaf patients (SSD) fit with an implant (CI) as listeners; one project used SSD-CI patients with preserved hearing (HP) in their implanted ear; one project used conventional CI patients. Approximately a third of the SSD-CI patients could create close matches to CI sound quality. The matches varied as a function of electrode length. Patients fit with shorter electrode arrays used upshifted formant frequencies and/or voice pitch and spectral smearing to match sound quality. Approximately half of the patients with longer electrode arrays used low- or band-pass filtering, spectral smearing and/or pitch contour flattening to match sound quality. Other patients chose very few modifications - these signals were relatively clean. For the SSD-CI/HP patients, stimulation directed to both the CI and acoustic hearing was characterized, relative to stimulation directed only to the CI, by one or more of the following: (i) a lower F0, (ii) a less flattened F0 contour, (iii) less upshift in formant frequencies, (iv) less smear, and (v) fewer instances of high-pass filtering. The final project established that muffled sound quality could be reduced by including an input gain for mid frequencies.

Indexed as

acoustic plus electric hearingcochlear implant–neuroprosthesiselectrode insertion depthsingle-sided deafnesssound quality

Identifiers

PMID42564862
PMCPMC13445709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.