ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology2026
Impact of migrating from paired to sequential stimulation on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor many years, the paired stimulation strategy (P) was the standard configuration recommended by Advanced Bionics for cochlear implant users. However, recent evidence has demonstrated advantages of the sequential strategy (S), leading the company to adopt it as the new standard. Despite this change, many users continue to rely on the P strategy. In this context, the present study aimed to determine whether the S strategy truly provides advantages for users who have been using the P strategy for at least three months. Notably, no studies on this topic have been conducted in Portuguese or other Latin-based languages.
methodsNine cochlear implant users participated in the study, totalling eleven ears analyzed. All participants initially used maps programmed with the P strategy, with routine clinical follow-up. These maps were configured based on each user's measured comfort level (M). After reprogramming to the S strategy, the maximum stimulation levels (M) were readjusted according to individual comfort reports. Detection thresholds (T) were set at 10% of the M value for both the original and the updated maps. Each ear underwent a sentence recognition test using the P strategy and, subsequently, the S strategy, allowing for direct comparison of performance. For this comparison, the paired Student's t-test was used, the level of significance adopted was 5% (p < 0.05).
resultsAll participants demonstrated improved performance with the S strategy. The difference between strategies was statistically significant, with an average increase of 23% in sentence recognition following the transition to sequential stimulation.
conclusionThe results indicate that the sequential strategy provides significantly better performance than the paired strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:
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.