The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators
Open accessAbstract
The cochlear implant (CI) is a neuroprosthesis that allows profoundly deaf patients to recover speech intelligibility. This recovery goes through long-term adaptative processes to build coherent percepts from the coarse information delivered by the implant. Here we analyzed the longitudinal postimplantation evolution of word recognition in a large sample of CI users in unisensory (visual or auditory) and bisensory (visuoauditory) conditions. We found that, despite considerable recovery of auditory performance during the first year postimplantation, CI patients maintain a much higher level of word recognition in speechreading conditions compared with normally hearing subjects, even several years after implantation. Consequently, we show that CI users present higher visuoauditory performance when compared with normally hearing subjects with similar auditory stimuli. This better performance is not only due to greater speechreading performance, but, most importantly, also due to a greater capacity to integrate visual input with the distorted speech signal. Our results suggest that these behavioral changes in CI users might be mediated by a reorganization of the cortical network involved in speech recognition that favors a more specific involvement of visual areas. Furthermore, they provide crucial indications to guide the rehabilitation of CI patients by using visually oriented therapeutic strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hearing lips and seeing voices
MCGURK, H., & MACDONALD, J. (1976) · Nature · doi:10.1038/264746a0 · Cited by 6,183
Handbook of perception and human performance
Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., & Thomas, J. P. (1986) · Wiley eBooks · Cited by 4,031
Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.303 · Cited by 3,024
Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907309 · Cited by 2,583
A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later
Greenwood, D. D. (1990) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.399052 · Cited by 1,890
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-4365 · Cited by 1,882
Better speech recognition with cochlear implants
Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/352236a0 · Cited by 1,190
Cross-modal plasticity: where and how?
Bavelier, D., & Neville, H. J. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn848 · Cited by 1,040
(2004) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 978
Anatomical evidence of multimodal integration in primate striate cortex
Falchier, A., Clavagnier, S., Barone, P., & Kennedy, H. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-13-05749.2002 · Cited by 892
Cited by
Critical periods in speech perception: New directions
Werker, J. F., & Hensch, T. K. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015104 · Cited by 774
Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change
Merabet, L. B., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2758 · Cited by 751
Blamey, P., Artieres, F., Başkent, D., Bergeron, F., Beynon, A., Burke, E., Dillier, N., Dowell, R., Fraysse, B., Gallégo, S., et al. (2013) · Audiology and Neurotology · doi:10.1159/000343189 · Cited by 676
Self-citationBorowiak, K., Schelinski, S., & von Kriegstein, K. (2018) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.09.019 · Cited by 17
Precise control of neural activity using dynamically optimized electrical stimulation
Shah, N. P., Phillips, A., Madugula, S., Lotlikar, A., Gogliettino, A. R., Hays, M. R., Grosberg, L., Brown, J., Dusi, A., Tandon, P., et al. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.83424 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Rouger, J., Lagleyre, S., Fraysse, B., Deneve, S., Deguine, O., & Barone, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2007-04-24
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 7295-7300
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2092782942
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0609419104
- The paper
- Rouger, J., Lagleyre, S., Fraysse, B., Deneve, S., Deguine, O., & Barone, P. (2007). Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609419104
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
