↓ Skip to main content

Learning and Memory Processes Following Cochlear Implantation: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning and Memory Processes Following Cochlear Implantation: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00493
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Pisoni, William G. Kronenberger, Suyog H. Chandramouli, Christopher M. Conway

Abstract

At the present time, there is no question that cochlear implants (CIs) work and often work very well in quiet listening conditions for many profoundly deaf children and adults. The speech and language outcomes data published over the last two decades document quite extensively the clinically significant benefits of CIs. Although there now is a large body of evidence supporting the "efficacy" of CIs as a medical intervention for profound hearing loss in both children and adults, there still remain a number of challenging unresolved clinical and theoretical issues that deal with the "effectiveness" of CIs in individual patients that have not yet been successfully resolved. In this paper, we review recent findings on learning and memory, two central topics in the field of cognition that have been seriously neglected in research on CIs. Our research findings on sequence learning, memory and organization processes, and retrieval strategies used in verbal learning and memory of categorized word lists suggests that basic domain-general learning abilities may be the missing piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding the cognitive factors that underlie the enormous individual differences and variability routinely observed in speech and language outcomes following cochlear implantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 28%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 22%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Linguistics 11 9%
Computer Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 30 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,450,346
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,228
of 29,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,527
of 300,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#372
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.