Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28130910›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2017

Auditory and audio-visual processing in patients with cochlear, auditory brainstem, and auditory midbrain implants: An EEG study.

Irina Schierholz, Mareike Finke, Andrej Kral, Andreas Büchner, Stefan Rach, Thomas Lenarz, Reinhard Dengler, Pascale Sandmann

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Crossmodal plasticity in hearing loss.Trends in neurosciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Animal Models of Tinnitus Treatment: Cochlear and Brain Stimulation.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Irina SchierholzDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3434-9097
Mareike FinkeCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all,", Hannover, Germany.
Andrej KralCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all,", Hannover, Germany.
Andreas BüchnerCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all,", Hannover, Germany.
Stefan RachDepartment of Epidemiological Methods and Etiological Research, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Thomas LenarzCluster of Excellence "Hearing4all,", Hannover, Germany.
Reinhard DenglerDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Pascale SandmannDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DELeibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DEThe University of Texas at Dallas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is substantial variability in speech recognition ability across patients with cochlear implants (CIs), auditory brainstem implants (ABIs), and auditory midbrain implants (AMIs). To better understand how this variability is related to central processing differences, the current electroencephalography (EEG) study compared hearing abilities and auditory-cortex activation in patients with electrical stimulation at different sites of the auditory pathway. Three different groups of patients with auditory implants (Hannover Medical School; ABI: n = 6, CI: n = 6; AMI: n = 2) performed a speeded response task and a speech recognition test with auditory, visual, and audio-visual stimuli. Behavioral performance and cortical processing of auditory and audio-visual stimuli were compared between groups. ABI and AMI patients showed prolonged response times on auditory and audio-visual stimuli compared with NH listeners and CI patients. This was confirmed by prolonged N1 latencies and reduced N1 amplitudes in ABI and AMI patients. However, patients with central auditory implants showed a remarkable gain in performance when visual and auditory input was combined, in both speech and non-speech conditions, which was reflected by a strong visual modulation of auditory-cortex activation in these individuals. In sum, the results suggest that the behavioral improvement for audio-visual conditions in central auditory implant patients is based on enhanced audio-visual interactions in the auditory cortex. Their findings may provide important implications for the optimization of electrical stimulation and rehabilitation strategies in patients with central auditory prostheses. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2206-2225, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAuditory CortexAuditory PathwaysBrain StemCochlear DiseasesCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPattern Recognition, Physiologicalaudio-visual interactionsauditory brainstem implantauditory cortexauditory midbrain implantauditory rehabilitationcochlear implantevent-related potentials

Identifiers

PMID28130910
PMCPMC6866801
OpenAlexW2582088921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.