ArticleHearing research2019
An improved method of obtaining electrocochleography recordings from Nucleus Hybrid cochlear implant users.
Article in Hearing research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- EEG-based diagnostics of the auditory system using cochlear implant electrodes as sensors.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Intracochlear Electrocochleography and Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients.The Laryngoscope · 2021Article
- Residual Hair Cell Responses in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Complete Loss of Acoustic Hearing After Implantation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021Article
- Assessing temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons in auditory brainstem and cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2021Article
- Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears.PloS one · 2020Article
- Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interest in electrocochleography (ECoG) has recently resurged as a potential tool to assess peripheral auditory function in cochlear implant (CI) users. ECoG recordings can be evoked using acoustic stimulation and recorded from an extra- or intra-cochlear electrode in CI users. Recordings reflect contributions from cochlear hair cells and the auditory nerve. We recently demonstrated the feasibility of using Custom Sound EP (clinically available software) to record ECoG responses in Nucleus Hybrid CI users with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear (Abbas et al, 2017). While successful, the recording procedures were time intensive, limiting clinical applications. The current report describes how we improved data collection efficiency by writing custom software using Python programming language. The software interfaced with Nucleus Implant Communicator (NIC) routines to record responses from an intracochlear electrode. ECoG responses were recorded in eight CI users with preserved acoustic hearing using Custom Sound EP and the Python-based software. Responses were similar across both recording systems, but the recording time decreased significantly using the Python-based software. Seven additional CI users underwent repeated testing using the Python-based software and showed high test-retest reliability. The improved efficiency and high reliability increases the likelihood of translating intracochlear ECoG to clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.