Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31373266›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Kelly N Jahn, Julie G Arenberg

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly N Jahn1 Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5832-5137
Julie G Arenberg2 Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Otolaryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Auditory Neuroscience Traning ProgramT32DC005361 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Adrian KC Lee, DAVID J PERKEL · 2002 to 2026
$8.8M
Perceptual implications of cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfacesR01DC012142 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JULIE G Arenberg · 2012 to 2026
$6.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012142NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling data suggest that sensitivity to the polarity of an electrical stimulus may reflect the integrity of the peripheral processes of the spiral ganglion neurons. Specifically, better sensitivity to anodic (positive) current than to cathodic (negative) current could indicate peripheral process degeneration or demyelination. The goal of this study was to characterize polarity sensitivity in pediatric and adult cochlear implant listeners (41 ears). Relationships between polarity sensitivity at threshold and (a) polarity sensitivity at suprathreshold levels, (b) age-group, (c) preimplantation duration of deafness, and (d) phoneme perception were determined. Polarity sensitivity at threshold was defined as the difference in single-channel behavioral thresholds measured in response to each of two triphasic pulses, where the central high-amplitude phase was either cathodic or anodic. Lower thresholds in response to anodic than to cathodic pulses may suggest peripheral process degeneration. On the majority of electrodes tested, threshold and suprathreshold sensitivity was lower for anodic than for cathodic stimulation; however, dynamic range was often larger for cathodic than for anodic stimulation. Polarity sensitivity did not differ between child- and adult-implanted listeners. Adults with long preimplantation durations of deafness tended to have better sensitivity to anodic pulses on channels that were estimated to interface poorly with the auditory nerve; this was not observed in the child-implanted group. Across subjects, duration of deafness predicted phoneme perception performance. The results of this study suggest that subject- and electrode-dependent differences in polarity sensitivity may assist in developing customized cochlear implant programming interventions for child- and adult-implanted listeners.

Indexed as

AdultAuditory PerceptionChildCochlear ImplantsCochlear NerveDeafnessElectric StimulationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpiral GanglionTime Factorsauditory thresholdcochlear nervepediatricspeech perceptionspiral ganglion

Identifiers

PMID31373266
PMCPMC6681263
OpenAlexW2965767699

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.