ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2019
Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design on Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures: Lateral Wall versus Perimodiolar Types.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Micro-CT Evaluation of Robot-Assisted Insertion of CI632 Implant in Human Cadaveric Temporal Bones.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Simulated auditory nerve response evoked by lateral-wall and peri-modiolar electrode arrays inserted in scala tympani or scala vestibuli.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Comparison of Speech Perception Performance According to Prosody Change Between People With Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Calculation of the Faradaic Impedance of the Electrode-Tissue Interface Improves Prediction of Behavioral T/C Levels in Cochlear Implant Patients.The journal of international advanced otology · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design Parameters.Micromachines · 2022Review
- 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
- Dendritic Degeneration of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers and Its Impact on the Spiking Pattern Under Regular Conditions and During Cochlear Implant Stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Assessing Array-Type Differences in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Panoramic ECAP Method.Ear and hearingArticle
- The Effect of Etiology, Array Type and Duration of Deafness on Focused Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
- Article
- Effect of Return Electrode Placement at Apical Cochleostomy on Current Flow With a Cochlear Implant.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe present study aims to investigate whether the cochlear implant electrode array design affects the electrophysiological and psychophysical measures. SUBJECTS AND
methodsEighty five ears were used as data in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups by the electrode array design: lateral wall type (LW) and perimodiolar type (PM). The electrode site was divided into three regions (basal, medial, apical). The evoked compound action potential (ECAP) threshold, T level, C level, dynamic range (DR), and aided air conduction threshold were measured.
resultsThe ECAP threshold was lower for the PM than for the LW, and decreased as the electrode site was closer to the apical region. The T level was lower for the PM than for the LW, and was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The C level on the basal region was lower for the PM than for the LW whereas the C level was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The DRs on the apical region was greater for the PM than for the LW whereas the DR was narrower on the apical region than on the other regions. The aided air conduction threshold was not different for the electrode design and frequency.
conclusionsThe current study would support the advantages of the PM over the LW in that the PM had the lower current level and greater DR, which could result in more localized neural stimulation and reduced power consumption.
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.