Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29113579›Full record

ReviewTrends in hearing

Use of Research Interfaces for Psychophysical Studies With Cochlear-Implant Users.

Ruth Y Litovsky, Matthew J Goupell, Alan Kan, David M Landsberger

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identifying electrode migration post cochlear implantation in children and its correlation with speech outcome.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Direct Cochlear Recordings in Humans Show a Theta Rhythmic Modulation of Auditory Nerve Activity by Selective Attention.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth Y Litovsky1 University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
Matthew J Goupell2 Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland-College Park, MD, USA.
Alan Kan1 University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
David M Landsberger3 New York University School of Medicine, NY, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USNew York University · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

WISCONSIN CENTER ON MENTAL RETARDATION: CORE SUPPORTP30HD003352 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MESSING, ALBEE · 1985 to 2015
$25.2M
Directional Hearing in Complex Auditory EnvironmentsR01DC003083 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI LITOVSKY, RUTH Y · 2004 to 2020
$7.4M
Binaural unmasking of tones and speech in bilateral cochlear implanteesR01DC014948 · NIDCD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI GOUPELL, MATTHEW J. · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
Restoring binaural hearing abilities to bilateral cochlear implant usersR03DC015321 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI KAN, ALAN HO LUN · 2016 to 2018
$459k
NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD003352NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003083NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014948NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC015321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of laboratories are using research interfaces to conduct experiments with cochlear-implant (CI) users. Because these interfaces bypass a subject's clinical sound processor, several concerns exist regarding safety and stimulation levels. Here we suggest best-practice approaches for how to safely and ethically perform this type of research and highlight areas of limited knowledge where further research is needed to help clarify safety limits. The article is designed to provide an introductory level of technical detail about the devices and the effects of electrical stimulation on perception and neurophysiology. From this, we summarize what should be the best practices in the field, based on the literature and our experience. Findings from the review of the literature suggest that there are three main safety concerns: (a) to prevent biological or neural damage, (b) to avoid presentation of uncomfortably loud sounds, and (c) to ensure that subjects have control over stimulus presentation. Researchers must pay close attention to the software-hardware interface to ensure that the three main safety concerns are closely monitored. An important area for future research will be the determination of the amount of biological damage that can occur from electrical stimulation from a CI placed in the cochlea, not in direct contact with neural tissue. As technology used in research with CIs evolve, some of these approaches may change. However, the three main safety principles outlined here are not anticipated to undergo change with technological advances.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsEthics, ResearchPatient SafetyBionicsElectric StimulationEvidence-Based PracticeHumansLoudness PerceptionSoftware DesignSoundUser-Computer Interfacecochlear implantsresearch interfacesafety

Identifiers

PMID29113579
PMCPMC5764139
OpenAlexW2768026671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.