Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26778546›Full record

ArticleHearing research2016

Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.

Monica Padilla, David M Landsberger

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Tonotopic Selectivity in Cats and Humans: Electrophysiology and Psychophysics.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Monica PadillaHouse Research Institute, Department of Communication and Neuroscience, 2100 West 3rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, 550 1st Avenue STE NBV 5E5, New York, NY 10016, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 806 W. Adams Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA. Electronic address: Monica.PadillaVelez@nyumc.org.
David M LandsbergerHouse Research Institute, Department of Communication and Neuroscience, 2100 West 3rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, 550 1st Avenue STE NBV 5E5, New York, NY 10016, USA.

Funding

Reduction in spread of excitation as predictor multi-channel spectral resolutionR01DC012152 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Using current-focusing and current-steering to increase the number of effective cR03DC010064 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2009 to 2011
$529k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012152NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC010064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Channel interaction from a broad spread of excitation is likely to be a limiting factor in performance by cochlear implant users. Although partial tripolar stimulation has been shown to reduce spread of excitation, the magnitude of the reduction is highly variable across subjects. Because the reduction in spread of excitation is typically only measured at one electrode for a given subject, the degree of variability across cochlear locations is unknown. The first goal of the present study was to determine if the reduction in spread of excitation observed from partial tripolar current focusing systematically varies across the cochlea. The second goal was to measure the variability in reduction of spread of excitation relative to monopolar stimulation across the cochlea. The third goal was to expand upon previous results that suggest that scaling of verbal descriptors can be used to predict the reduction in spread of excitation, by increasing the limited number of sites previously evaluated and verify the relationships remain with the larger dataset. The spread of excitation for monopolar and partial tripolar stimulation was measured at 5 cochlear locations using a psychophysical forward masking task. Results of the present study suggest that although partial tripolar stimulation typically reduces spread of excitation, the degree of reduction in spread of excitation was found to be highly variable and no effect of cochlear location was found. Additionally, subjective scaling of certain verbal descriptors (Clean/Dirty, Pure/Noisy) correlated with the reduction in spread of excitation suggesting sound quality scaling might be used as a quick clinical estimate of channels providing a reduction in spread of excitation. This quick scaling technique might help clinicians determine which patients would be most likely to benefit from a focused strategy.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionCochlear ImplantsAcoustic StimulationAgedAged, 80 and overCochleaCochlear ImplantationElectric StimulationFemaleHumansLoudness PerceptionMaleMiddle AgedNoisePerceptual MaskingPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesCochlearImplantsScalingSpreadTripolar

Identifiers

PMID26778546
PMCPMC4907334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.