ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
The Effect of Between-Ear Speech Perception Asymmetry on Localization, Spoken Language, and Literacy for Adolescents With Cochlear Implants.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to examine the effects of between-ear speech perception asymmetry on localization, spoken language, and reading in adolescents with early cochlear implants (CIs).
methodEighty adolescents, who have long-term bilateral device use, participated: 10 with bimodal (BM) devices (CI plus hearing aid at the nonimplanted ear) and 70 with bilateral CIs (BCIs; 14 simultaneous, 56 sequential). Participants completed localization, unilateral speech perception, receptive language, and reading tests. Principal component analysis created composite scores for better-ear speech perception and between-ear speech perception asymmetry. Hierarchical regression examined the effects of demographics, audiological factors, and asymmetry on outcomes.
resultsLocalization scores for the two BCI groups did not differ significantly. Both BCI groups' localization scores were, however, significantly better than those of the BM group. Language and reading scores were not significantly different for the three groups. Regression analyses of localization scores revealed positive effects for earlier receipt of CI/s and negative effects of longer duration of acoustic experience, although this effect was moderated by degree of residual hearing. Larger speech perception asymmetry negatively affected localization scores but had no effect on language or reading scores.
conclusionsSpeech perception asymmetry negatively affected localization but not language or reading in adolescent CI users. Prolonged acoustic experience (via BM use) increased speech perception asymmetry and reduced localization skills. Localization skills had no significant effects on spoken language or reading scores in adolescence. Clinically, asymmetry guides device recommendations, but asymmetry's impact, if any, differs by outcome. For children with better residual hearing, early acoustic hearing (via BM use) benefits both localization and language. Thus, careful timing of BCIs is advised. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33490615.
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.