ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2019
Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perfecting Sensory Restoration and the Unmet Need for Personalized Medicine in Cochlear Implant Users: A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Frequency-to-Place Mismatch and Cochlear Implant Outcomes by Electrode Type.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- Simulated auditory nerve response evoked by lateral-wall and peri-modiolar electrode arrays inserted in scala tympani or scala vestibuli.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth on Speech Perception Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Otology & neurotology open · 2023Article
- Is the spread of excitation width correlated to the speech recognition in cochlear implant users?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 · 2021Article
- Characterization of the human helicotrema: implications for cochlear duct length and frequency mapping.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2020Article
- Preservation of Residual Hearing: Long-Term Results With a Mid-Scala Electrode.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn electric-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant, the observed "mismatch" between perceived pitch and predicted pitch, based on the amended Greenwood frequency map, ranges from -1 to -2 octaves. It is unknown if and how this mismatch differs for perimodiolar versus lateral wall electrode arrays.
objectivesWe aimed to investigate if the type of electrode array design is of influence on the electric-acoustic pitch match.
methodFourteen patients (n = 8 with CI422 + lateral wall electrode array, n = 6 with CI512 + perimodiolar electrode array; Cochlear Ltd.) compared the pitch of acoustic stimuli to the pitch of electric stimuli at two test sessions (average interval 4.3 months). We plotted these "pitch matches" per electrode contact against insertion angle, calculated from high-resolution computed tomography scans. The difference between these pitch matches and two references (the spiral ganglion map and the default frequency allocation by Cochlear Ltd.) was defined as "mismatch."
resultsWe found average mismatches of -2.2 octaves for the CI422 group and -1.3 octaves for the CI512 group. For any given electrode contact, the mismatch was smaller for the CI512 electrode array than for the CI422 electrode array. For all electrode contacts together, there was a significant difference between the mismatches of the two groups (p < 0.05). Results remained stable over time, with no significant difference between the two test sessions considering all electrode contacts. Neither group showed a significant correlation between the mismatch and phoneme recognition scores.
conclusionThe pitch mismatch was smaller for the perimodiolar electrode array than for the lateral wall electrode array.
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.