Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30393003›Full record

ArticleHearing research2018

Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.

Jeong-Seo Kim, Viral D Tejani, Paul J Abbas, Carolyn J Brown

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Jeong-Seo KimDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: jeong-seo-kim@uiowa.edu.
Viral D TejaniDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Paul J AbbasDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Carolyn J BrownDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Funding

Speech Production &LanguageP50DC000242 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Bob McMurray · 1989 to 2026
$58.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveShorter electrode arrays and soft surgical techniques allow for preservation of acoustic hearing in many cochlear implant (CI) users. Recently, we developed a method of using the Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) system built in Custom Sound EP clinical software to record acoustically evoked electrocochleography (ECoG) responses from an intracochlear electrode in Nucleus Hybrid CI users (Abbas et al., 2017). We recorded responses dominated by the hair cells (cochlear microphonic, CM/DIF) and the auditory nerve (auditory nerve neurophonic, ANN/SUM). Unfortunately, the recording procedure was time consuming, limiting potential clinical applications. This report describes a modified method to record the ECoG response more efficiently. We refer to this modified technique as the "short window" method, while our previous technique (Abbas et al., 2017) is referred as the "long window" method. In this report, our goal was to 1) evaluate the feasibility of the short window method to record the CM/DIF and ANN/SUM responses, 2) characterize the reliability and sensitivity of the measures recorded using the short window method, and 3) evaluate the relationship between the CM/DIF and ANN/SUM measures recorded using the modified method and audiometric thresholds.

methodThirty-four postlingually deafened adult Hybrid CI users participated in this study. Acoustic tone bursts were presented at four frequencies (250, 500, 750, and 1000 Hz) at various stimulation levels via an insert earphone in both condensation and rarefaction polarities. Acoustically evoked ECoG responses were recorded from the most apical electrode in the intracochlear array. These two responses were subtracted to emphasize the CM/DIF responses and added to emphasize the ANN/SUM responses. Response thresholds were determined based on visual inspection of time waveforms, and trough-to-peak analysis technique was used to quantify response amplitudes. Within-subject comparison of responses measured using both short and long window methods were obtained from seven subjects. We also assessed the reliability and sensitivity of the short window method by comparing repeated measures from 19 subjects at different times. Correlations between CM/DIF and ANN/SUM measures using the short window recording method and audiometric thresholds were also assessed.

resultsRegardless of the recording method, CM/DIF responses were larger than ANN/SUM responses. Responses obtained using the short window method were positively correlated to those obtained using the conventional long window method. Subjects who had stable acoustic hearing at two different time points had similar ECoG responses at those points, confirming high test-retest reliability of the short window method. Subjects who lost hearing between two different time points showed increases in ECoG thresholds, suggesting that physiologic ECoG responses are sensitive to audiometric changes. Correlations between CM/DIF and ANN/SUM thresholds and audiometric thresholds at all tested frequencies were significant.

conclusionThis study compares two different recording methods. Intracochlear ECoG measures recorded using the short window technique were efficient, reliable, and repeatable. We were able to collect more frequency specific data with the short window method, and observed similar results between the long window and short window methods. Correlations between physiological thresholds and audiometric thresholds were similar to those reported previously using the long window method (Abbas et al., 2017). This is an important finding because it demonstrates that clinically-available software can be used to measure frequency-specific ECoG responses with enhanced efficiency, increasing the odds that this technique might move from the laboratory into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsCochlear Microphonic PotentialsHearingAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Evoked ResponseAuditory ThresholdCochleaCochlear ImplantationCochlear NerveDeafnessElectric StimulationFeasibility StudiesAuditory nerve neurophonicCochlear implantCochlear microphonicElectrocochleographyHearing preservationHybridNeural response telemetry

Identifiers

PMID30393003
PMCPMC6309996

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.