Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30488764›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.

Lindsay DeVries, Julie G Arenberg

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

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay DeVries1 Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0169-0165
Julie G Arenberg2 Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Maryland, College Park · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Perceptual implications of cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfacesR01DC012142 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JULIE G Arenberg · 2012 to 2026
$6.5M
Training Program in Hearing and BalanceT32DC000033 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WERNER, LYNNE A. · 1991 to 2015
$3.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012142NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech understanding abilities are highly variable among cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Poor electrode-neuron interfaces (ENIs) caused by sparse neural survival or distant electrode placement may lead to increased channel interaction and reduced speech perception. Currently, it is not possible to directly measure neural survival in CI listeners; therefore, obtaining information about electrode position is an alternative approach to assessing ENIs. This information can be estimated with computerized tomography (CT) imaging; however, postoperative CT imaging is not often available. A reliable method to assess channel interaction, such as the psychophysical tuning curve (PTC), offers an alternative way to identify poor ENIs. This study aimed to determine (a) the within-subject relationship between CT-estimated electrode distance and PTC bandwidths, and (b) whether using focused stimulation on channels with suspected poor ENI improves vowel identification and sentence recognition. In 13 CI listeners, CT estimates of electrode-to-modiolus distance and PTCs bandwidths were measured for all available electrodes. Two test programs were created, wherein a subset of electrodes used focused stimulation based on (a) broad PTC bandwidth (Tuning) and (b) far electrode-to-modiolus distance (Distance). Two control programs were also created: (a) Those channels not focused in the Distance program (Inverse-Control), and (b) an all-channel monopolar program (Monopolar-Control). Across subjects, scores on the Distance and Tuning programs were significantly higher than the Inverse-Control program, and similar to the Monopolar-Control program. Subjective ratings were similar for all programs. These findings suggest that focusing channels suspected to have a high degree of channel interaction result in quite different outcomes, acutely.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, SpeechCochleaCochlear ImplantationComprehensionDeafnessElectric StimulationFemaleHearingHumansMalechannel selectionimagingpsychophysicsspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID30488764
PMCPMC6277758
OpenAlexW2902632479

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.