ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2011
Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2016Article
- Importance of cochlear health for implant function.Hearing research · 2015Review
- Comparison of signal and gap-detection thresholds for focused and broad cochlear implant electrode configurations.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2015Article
- Cochlear infrastructure for electrical hearing.Hearing research · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implant function, as assessed by psychophysical measures, varies from one stimulation site to another within a patient's cochlea. This suggests that patient performance might be improved by selection of the best-functioning sites for the processor map. In evaluating stimulation sites for such a strategy, electrode configuration is an important variable. Variation across stimulation sites in loudness-related measures (detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels), is much larger for stimulation with bipolar electrode configurations than with monopolar configurations. The current study found that, in contrast to the loudness-related measures, magnitudes of across-site means and the across-site variances of modulation detection thresholds were not dependent on electrode configuration, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying variation in these various psychophysical measures are not all the same. The data presented here suggest that bipolar and monopolar electrode configurations are equally effective in identifying good and poor stimulation sites for modulation detection but that the across-site patterns of modulation detection thresholds are not the same for the two configurations. Therefore, it is recommended to test all stimulation sites using the patient's clinically assigned electrode configuration when performing psychophysical evaluation of a patient's modulation detection acuity to select sites for the processor map.
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.