Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42832430›Full record

ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2026

Novel Psychoacoustic Measure of Spectral-Temporal Processing for Discrete Regions of the Cochlear Array: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Emma Louise Chaffey, Barbara Heinze, Christofer Bester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 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.

Emma Louise ChaffeySchool of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia, emma.chaffey@uwa.edu.au.
Barbara HeinzeEar Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia.
Christofer BesterEar Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the general success of cochlear implantation (CI), the impact of known pathophysiological processes occurring within the cochlea after surgery on hearing outcomes are poorly understood. Previous studies suggested localised intracochlear variations in the electrode-cochlear interface and neurosensory targets may be contributing to poor outcomes for some CI users. Research has highlighted the need to define optimal cochlear biomarkers and behavioural measures to enhance diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for CI users with poor outcomes. The current proof-of-concept study introduces a novel adaptation of a measure of spectral-temporal processing and aimed to explore its association with electrophysiological measures and speech perception.

methodsEighteen adult CI users with 24, 400, 500, and 600 series Cochlear Ltd devices were recruited from a large not-for-profit CI clinic in Australia. Participants completed a "sectional" adaptation of the spectral ripple STRIPES test (secSTRIPES) and bipolar transimpedances (4PI). Original STRIPES stimuli were band-pass filtered for secSTRIPES, targeting discrete high-frequency (basal) and low-frequency (apical) sections of the electrode array. A linear mixed model approach was used to determine if any relationship existed between localised impedance measures and secSTRIPES scores. Simple linear regression was used to investigate within-subject correlations and the association with conventional measures of speech understanding.

resultsThe analysed data in this study indicated within-subject sectional variability, with a meaningful difference in secSTRIPES scores for 13 of 18 participants (scores different by >1). Most participants (72%) scored worse on the basal secSTRIPES test. This sectional bias was significant when controlling for age and impedances for 14 CI users with bilateral hearing loss (p = 0.005). There was no statistically significant relationship between 4PI and secSTRIPES scores; however, the results suggested there may be positive trend between localised impedance and spectral-temporal processing. The association of secSTRIPES and speech scores was also nonsignificant; however, positive trends between speech and apical STRIPES scores were observed.

conclusionsThis pilot study, the first to describe the sectional adaptation of the STRIPES test, provides sufficient proof of concept for secSTRIPES as a psychoacoustic measure of listening ability in localised sections of the electrode array. While results must be interpreted cautiously due to limitations of the sample size, preliminary findings reveal intracochlear variability in processing performance which warrants further investigation. Following formal validation, secSTRIPES may be beneficial for future research to explore how sectional biases influence overall processing for CI users and as a cochlear biomarker to guide interventions to improve CI performance.

Indexed as

Auditory processingCochlear implantsInner earObjective measuresPsychophysicsSpeech processing

Identifiers

PMID42832430
PMCPMC13685010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.