Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
328
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
328 results for “cochlear implant”
Data set of two dual-task paradigms to measure listening effort in cochlear implant users
<p>This data set presents the data from the paper by Hendrikse, Dingemanse, & Goedegebure (2022). This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using listening effort to measure relatively small differences in SNR, as would arise from different hearing-device settings. Listening effort was chosen, because there are indications in literature that listening effort may be more sensitive to differences between hearing-device settings than established speech intelligibility measures. Two behavioral listening effort tests were performed at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) where the intelligibility was high. A sentence final word identification and recall test (SWIRT), and a sentence verification test (SVT) were compared with a group of 18 Dutch CI users. SWIRT measured the ability to recall the final words of sentences after a list of five or seven sentences was presented. The SVT measured the ability and reaction time to determine whether a sentence was true or false. Both tests were conducted in background noise at SNRs +4 dB and +8 dB above the 50% speech perception threshold. The structure of the data files is explained in the README file.</p>
The role of place cues in voluntary stream segregation for cochlear implant listeners
<p>Data generated for the study "The role of place cues in voluntary stream segregation for cochlear implant listeners" - <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216517750262">https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216517750262</a></p> <p>The files "Experiment_1.txt" and "Experiment_2.txt" contain the data from the first and second experiments, respectively.</p> <p>List of variables:</p> <ul> <li>Subject: Listener's ID</li> <li>Electrode: Stimulation electrode for the distractor stream. The target stream was always presented on electrode 11.</li> <li>Rate: Stimulation pulse rate.</li> <li>ABpairs: Number of AB duplets in the sequence.</li> <li>Hrate: Hit rate</li> <li>FArate: False alarm rate</li> <li>dprime: d' score</li> <li>d_se: Standard error of the d' score</li> <li>IOmodel: 1 for ideal observer model estimates and 0 for listener's d' scores</li> </ul>
Raw Data from - Speech-ABRs in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Feasibility Study
<p><strong>Speech-ABRs in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Feasibility Study</strong></p> <p>Ghada BinKhamis, Emanuele Perugia, Martin O’Driscoll, Karolina Kluk</p> <p><strong>Please site the paper when using this dataset</strong> (DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1619100)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Participant Recordings (BinKhamis et al Speech_ABR in CI raw data.zip)</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Description of raw EEG (speech-ABR) data main folder, subfolders, and raw EEG files</strong> <ul> <li><strong>Folder Information</strong> <ul> <li><strong>Main folder:</strong> Contains 12 subfolders with the raw data from 12 participants</li> <li><strong>Subfolders:</strong> Each subfolder contains raw EEG recordings from one participant, subfolders names are:</li> <li>CI1, CI2, CI3, CI4, CI5, CI6, CI7, CI8, CI9, CI10, CI11, CI12</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Each participant subfolder contains four ‘.mat’ files:</strong> <ul> <li>Each ‘.mat’ file starts with the participant ID <ul> <li>CI1, CI2, CI3, CI4, CI5, CI6, CI7, CI8, CI9, CI10, CI11, CI12</li> </ul> </li> <li>Followed by the stimulus: 40 da</li> <li>Followed by the stimulus polarity <ul> <li>Pos for positive/standard</li> <li>Neg for negative (reversed polarity stimulus)</li> </ul> </li> <li>Followed by the ipsilateral/implanted ear <ul> <li>R for right ear</li> <li>L for left ear</li> </ul> </li> <li>Finally the recording number for that polarity <ul> <li>1 is the first recording</li> <li>2 is the second recording</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Example ‘.mat’ file name:</strong> <ul> <li><em>CI1 40 da Neg R1.mat:</em> Participant number 1, reversed polarity stimulus, implanted ear – right ear, recording number one</li> <li><em>CI9 40 da Pos L2.mat:</em> Participant number 9, standard/positive polarity stimulus, implanted ear – left ear, recording number two</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Description of ‘.mat’ files that can be accessed and processed using MATLAB (MathWorks): </strong>Each ‘.mat’ file is a structure that contains the following fields: <ul> <li>The first nine fields are informational, for example: <ul> <li>xunits: ‘s’ indicates that the recording time window is in seconds, conversion to milliseconds would be required to plot the data in milliseconds</li> <li>start: ‘0’ indicates that both stimulus and recording start at 0 seconds</li> <li>points: <strong>13750</strong> is the number of sample points</li> <li>chans: 2 is the number of channels (channel 2 is the ipsilateral channel for participants with a Right CI, and channel 1 is the ipsilateral channel for participants with a Left CI)</li> <li>frames: 2500 is the number of epochs (repetitions)</li> </ul> </li> <li>The last filed <strong>‘values’</strong> is what contains the raw EEG data (13750x2x2500) <ul> <li><strong>13750 </strong>is the number of samples</li> <li><strong>2 </strong>is the number of channels (channel one is recorded from the left ear lobe (A1) and channel two is from the right ear lobe (A2))</li> <li><strong>2500 </strong>is the number of epochs</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Date of data collection: </strong>September 2017</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Artificial-head artefact Recordings (BinKhamis et al Speech_ABR in CI artefact data.zip)</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>This folder contains six artificial-head artefact recordings</strong> <ul> <li><strong>CI07_Artefact_40da_neg.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI07's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a reversed polarity (neg) 40 ms [da]</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>CI07_Artefact_40da_pos.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI07's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a standard polarity (pos) 40 ms [da]</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>CI08_Artefact_40da_neg.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI08's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a reversed polarity (neg) 40 ms [da]</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>CI08_Artefact_40da_pos.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI08's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a standard polarity (pos) 40 ms [da]</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>CI09_Artefact_40da_neg.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI09's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a reversed polarity (neg) 40 ms [da]</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>CI09_Artefact_40da_pos.mat</strong> <ul> <li>Artefact based on closest approximation to CI09's MAP</li> <li>Recorded in response to a standard polarity (pos) 40 ms [da]<br> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Artefact recordings are in '.mat' format (MATLAB, MathWorks)</strong> <ul> <li>Each '.mat' file is a 10988x2500 matrix <ul> <li><strong>10988</strong> is the number of sample points</li> <li><strong>2500</strong> is the number of epochs (repetitions)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Artefacts recorded in: </strong>June 2018</p>
The role of temporal cues in voluntary stream segregation for cochlear implant users
<p>Data from "The role of temporal cues in voluntary stream segregation for cochlear implant users" (DOI: 10.1177/2331216518773226)</p> <p>List of variables:</p> <ul> <li>Subject: Listener's ID</li> <li>Electrode: Stimulation electrode.</li> <li>Rate: Stimulation pulse rate of the distractor stream. The target stream was always presented with a pulse rate of 300 pps.</li> <li>ABpairs: Number of AB duplets in the sequence.</li> <li>Hrate: Hit rate</li> <li>FArate: False alarm rate</li> <li>dprime: d' score</li> <li>d_se: Standard error of the d' score</li> <li>IOmodel: 1 for ideal observer model estimates and 0 for listener's d' scores</li> <li>control: 1 for the control (i.e. no distractor) condition</li> </ul> <p><strong>Note: In figure 3 from the paper, there is an error in the listeners' ID. Starting from the top panel, the correct IDs are: L1, L4, L5, L10, L6, L8 and L9. The IDs provided in the Data.txt file are correct.</strong></p>
Auditory stream segregation and selective attention for cochlear implant listeners: Evidence from behavioral measures and event-related potentials
<p>Data set generated for the study "Auditory stream segregation and selective attention for cochlear implant listeners: Evidence from behavioral measures and event-related potentials" </p> <ol> <li><strong>behavioral.txt</strong>: d' scores obtained by the listeners on the deviant detection task. <ul> <li>subject: listener ID</li> <li>distractor: Electrode separation condition</li> <li>deviant: Deviant triplet</li> <li>d: d' scores</li> <li>exp: experimental session (BEH / ERP)</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>ERP_by_condition.txt</strong>: <ul> <li>Subject: listener ID</li> <li>Type: Sound type (Target / Distractor)</li> <li>Dev: Deviant condition. Early = deviant triplets 1 or 2. Late = deviant triplet 3 or <em>none.</em></li> <li>rep: Triplet number</li> <li>sound: sound number within the triplet</li> <li>amplitude: amplitude difference between the active and the passive listening conditions.</li> </ul> </li> </ol> <p> </p>
Raw data: Effect of the Relative Timing between Same-Polarity Pulses on Thresholds and Loudness in Cochlear Implant Users
<p>Raw values in dB re. 1 µV of the thresholds and loudness-balanced levels at MCL from:</p> <p>Guérit, F., Marozeau, J., Epp, B., & Carlyon, R. P. (2020). Effect of the Relative Timing between Same-Polarity Pulses on Thresholds and Loudness in Cochlear Implant Users. <em>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology</em>, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10162-020-00767-y</p>
Raw data for the research article "Rasch analysis of the Listening Effort Questionnaire - Cochlear Implant (LEQ-CI)"
<p>These are the raw data for the paper entitled "Rasch analysis of the Listening Effort Questionnaire - Cochlear Implant (LEQ-CI)" that is currently under revision in Ear and Hearing.</p>
Behavioral and ephys data of research paper: Microsecond interaural time difference discrimination restored by cochlear implants after neonatal deafness
<p>The uploaded raw behavioral and electrophysiological data form the basis for our research study on "Microsecond Interaural Time Difference Discrimination Restored by Cochlear Implants After Neonatal Deafness". Based on this data we were able to show that neonatally deafened (ND) rats provided with precisely synchronized cochlear implant stimulation in adulthood can be trained to lateralize interaural time differences (ITDs) with essentially normal behavioral thresholds near 50 μs. Furthermore, comparable ND rats show high physiological sensitivity to ITDs immediately after binaural implantation in adulthood.</p> <p>In addition to the raw data, we provided scripts to analyze the psychometric functions for the ITD sensitivity of our acoustically or electrically stimulated rats (see Fig. 1 of the manuscript). To reproduce the analysis of the electrophysiological data (see Figs. 3+4 of the manuscript), various analysis scripts were added in addition to the raw data. For a detailed description of the data analysis of these data, see section "Data analysis" of the Methods section of our manuscript.</p> <p> </p>
Musical pitch interval comparisons in cochlear implants
<p>Music perception remains challenging for many cochlear implant (CI) recipients, due perhaps in part to the frequency mismatch that occurs between the electrode-neural interface and the frequencies allocated by the programming. Individual differences in ear anatomy, electrode array length, and surgical insertion can lead to great variability in the positions of electrodes within the cochlea, but these differences are not typically accounted for by current CI programming techniques. Flat panel computed tomography (FPCT) can be used to visualize the location of the electrodes and calculate the corresponding spiral ganglion characteristic frequencies. Such FPCT-based CI frequency mapping may improve pitch perception accuracy, and thus music appreciation, as well as speech perception. The present study seeks to develop a behavioral assessment metric for how well place-based pitch is represented across the frequency spectrum. Listeners were asked to match the pitch interval created by two tones, played sequentially, across different frequency ranges to estimate the extent to which pitch is evenly distributed across the CI array. This test was piloted with pure tones in normal hearing listeners, using both unprocessed and vocoder-processed sounds to simulate both matched and mismatched frequency-to-place maps. We hypothesized that the vocoded stimuli would be more difficult to match in terms of pitch intervals than unprocessed stimuli and that a warped map (as may occur with current clinical maps) would produce poorer matches than a veridical and even map (as may be achieved using FPCT-based frequency allocation). Preliminary results suggest that the task can reveal differences between veridical and warped maps in normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions. A small cohort of CI recipients performed similarly to a vocoded condition employing the same pitch map. The next steps will be to test this procedure in CI users and compare results with traditional clinical maps and FPCT-based frequency allocation to determine whether the FPCT-based maps result in improved pitch-interval perception.</p>
Locus coeruleus activity improves cochlear implant performance
<p>Data set for: Glennon E, Valtcheva S, Zhu A, Wadghiri YZ, Svirsky MA, Froemke RC. Locus coeruleus activity improves cochlear implant performance. Nature. <em>Provisionally accepted.</em></p> <p>Each file contains the source data for individual figures. </p>
Safety and Efficacy of Remote Programming of Nucleus Cochlear Implants
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02644343. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Acceptance and Performance of the CP1170 Sound Processor in Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05619575. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Clinical Evaluation of the Cochlear Nucleus CI532 Cochlear Implant in Adults
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03007472. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 8.
Acceptance and Performance of CP1110 Sound Processor With Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05080283. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Cochlear Implantation in Cases of Single-Sided Deafness
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02203305. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.
Cochlear Implantation After Labyrinthectomy or a Translabyrinthine Surgical Approach
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02309099. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.
Cochlear Implantation in Pediatric Cases of Unilateral Hearing Loss
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02963974. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 9.
The Neuro Zti Cochlear Implant System Efficacy and Safety in Adults
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02941627. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 2. Publications: 1.
Observation of Benefits for Patients Implanted With a Hearing Implant of the Company Cochlear
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02004353. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 16. Publications: 3.
Evaluation of the Nucleus Hybrid™ L24 Cochlear Implant System
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00678899. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.