ArticleHearing research2008
Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.
Article in Hearing research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2018Trial
- Analysis of Neural Interface When Using Modiolar Electrode Stimulation. Radiological Evaluation, Trans-Impedance Matrix Analysis and Effect on Listening Effort in Cochlear Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011Article
- Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration.Hearing research · 2010Article
- Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.Trends in amplification · 2010Review
- Effects of high-rate pulse trains on electrode discrimination in cochlear implant users.Trends in amplification · 2009Article
- Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.Hearing research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory prostheses use implanted electrode arrays that permit stimulation at many sites along the tonotopic axis of auditory neurons. Psychophysical studies demonstrate that measures of implant function, such as detection and discrimination thresholds, vary considerably across these sites, that the across-site patterns of these measures differ across subjects, and that the likely mechanisms underlying this variability differ across measures. Psychophysical and speech recognition studies suggest that not all stimulation sites contribute equally to perception with the prosthesis and that some sites might have negative effects on perception. Studies that reduce the number of active stimulation sites indicate that most cochlear implant users can effectively utilize a maximum of only about seven sites in their processors. These findings support a strategy for improving implant performance by selecting only the best stimulation sites for the processor map. Another approach is to revise stimulation parameters for ineffective sites in an effort to improve acuity at those sites. In this paper, we discuss data supporting these approaches and some potential pitfalls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.