SLPOtherTrends in hearing2026

When the First Pulse Fades: 75% Reduction in Precedence Effect in Cochlear Implanted Rats.

Alexa N Buck, Tim Fleiner, Nicole Rosskothen-Kuhl and 1 others

PMID 42023972

WHAT IT FOUND

Cochlear-implanted rats still gave the first pulse in a burst extra weight for judging sound direction, but about 75% less than hearing rats, and this did not grow as pulses came faster.

Deafening early or in adulthood made no difference.

Key findings

01Implant rats did weight the first pulse of a burst more than the later pulses, just far less than hearing rats did. Measured as an onset index, which compares how much the first pulse counted against the middle pulses of the burst, the neonatally deafened implant rats averaged 2.2 and the adult-deafened implant rats 2.0, against 8.2 in normally hearing rats, which the authors describe as roughly a 75% reduction in the size of the precedence effect.

02In the implant rats the first-pulse advantage did not get stronger as pulses were delivered faster. It fell slightly instead, the opposite of the hearing rats' pattern, and the difference between the two trends was statistically significant (t = 4.90, p < .001). At 900 pulses per second the first pulse carried only about one-fourth the weight seen in hearing rats.

03Having heard normally before implantation did not restore the effect. The adult-deafened and the neonatally deafened implant rats were statistically indistinguishable from each other (p = .98), and both sat well below the hearing rats (p = .0007 and p = .0018).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a study in rats. No person was tested, and the authors' preferred explanation for their result, that the animals never had to use their implants in a world full of echoes, is a hypothesis the experiment cannot test. The numbers are small: 8 neonatally deafened and 4 adult-deafened implant rats, and the comparison data from the 4 hearing rats were taken from an earlier published study rather than collected alongside. Three of the eight neonatally deafened rats could not meet the 75% accuracy criterion at the fastest pulse rate and were dropped, so the data at 900 pulses per second come from fewer animals than the rest. The adult-deafened rats were only tested at the single pulse rate of 300 per second, so it is not known whether their results would look the same at other rates. No echoes or reverberation were ever presented. The rats lateralized isolated bursts of pulses, so the study measures how heavily they weighted the first pulse, not how they actually cope in a reverberant room. The hearing comparison used acoustic clicks delivered through tubes while the implant rats received electric pulses, so the two groups differ in stimulus type as well as in hearing history.

Declared interests

The work was funded by the Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, the Hong Kong General Research Fund, the German Academic Exchange Service with German federal research ministry funds, the EU Seventh Framework Programme Marie Curie actions, the research commission of the medical faculty at the University of Freiburg, and the charity Taube Kinder lernen hören e.V. Eight of the cochlear implant electrode arrays used in the animals were provided by MED-EL Medical Electronics, a company that makes cochlear implants, under a research agreement. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 75% figure as a measured loss of hearing-in-noise ability in implant users. It is a difference in how heavily 12 rats weighted the first pulse of an isolated burst of pulses, with no echoes present anywhere in the experiment. The authors' explanation for it, that their animals never had to use their implants in a reverberant world, was not tested here.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →