ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Incomplete binaural restoration in single-sided deafness treated with cochlear implants: insights from compensatory head-orienting behaviors.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Single-sided deafness (SSD) disrupts binaural spatial hearing and may require active compensatory strategies, even for those with cochlear implants (CIs). This study examined spatial hearing adaptations in individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD), including those using cochlear implants (CIs) and unaided SSD, compared to normal-hearing (NH) controls. Methods: Using a dual-task paradigm, participants performed both simple localization and complex multi-talker speech identification tasks, with continuous tracking of head-orientation dynamics to quantify re-orientations, response promptness, and cumulative movement. Results: The use of CIs yielded measurable improvements in basic localization tasks; however, these benefits diminished in ecologically valid, dynamic environments. Speech intelligibility remained asymmetric, favoring the better-hearing ear, and performance for CI-side targets collapsed despite favorable signal-to-noise ratios. Listeners with SSD-CI demonstrated rapid, iterative scanning, prolonged orientation sequences, and increased cumulative head movement, suggesting reliance on active compensatory strategies rather than complete restoration of spatial hearing. Discussion: Current CI technology improves access to sound and spatial hearing for SSD listeners, but it does not fully restore functional binaural hearing in dynamic listening environments. Persistent compensatory head-orienting behaviors indicate reliance on better-ear listening and increased physical effort to position the head in ways that exploit acoustic head-shadow effects, allowing speech access by the better-hearing ear. These findings support the use of ecologically valid assessment models and head-orientation metrics to guide auditory rehabilitation and future innovations for asymmetric hearing loss.
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.