ArticleEar and hearing
A Comparison of Intracochlear Pressures During Ipsilateral and Contralateral Stimulation With a Bone Conduction Implant.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone conduction stimulation efficiency at coupling locations closer to the cochlea.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Objective preclinical measures for bone conduction implants.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Effects of Varying Laser Parameters During Laser Stapedotomy on Intracochlear Pressures.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
- Bone-conduction hyperacusis induced by superior canal dehiscence in human: the underlying mechanism.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Labyrinthine concussion: Historic otopathologic antecedents of a challenging diagnosis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Review
- Investigation of Mechanisms in Bone Conduction Hyperacusis With Third Window Pathologies Based on Model Predictions.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Effects of Stimulation Position and Frequency Band on Auditory Spatial Perception with Bilateral Bone Conduction.Trends in hearingArticle
- Spatial Release From Masking With Bilateral Bone Conduction Stimulation at Mastoid for Normal Hearing Subjects.Trends in hearingArticle
- Review of Whole Head Experimental Cochlear Promontory Vibration with Bone Conduction Stimulation and Investigation of Experimental Setup Effects.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare contralateral to ipsilateral stimulation with percutaneous and transcutaneous bone conduction implants.
backgroundBone conduction implants (BCIs) effectively treat conductive and mixed hearing losses. In some cases, such as in single-sided deafness, the BCI is implanted contralateral to the remaining healthy ear in an attempt to restore some of the benefits provided by binaural hearing. While the benefit of contralateral stimulation has been shown in at least some patients, it is not clear what cues or mechanisms contribute to this function. Previous studies have investigated the motion of the ossicular chain, skull, and round window in response to bone vibration. Here, we extend those reports by reporting simultaneous measurements of cochlear promontory velocity and intracochlear pressures during bone conduction stimulation with two common BCI attachments, and directly compare ipsilateral to contralateral stimulation.
methodsFresh-frozen whole human heads were prepared bilaterally with mastoidectomies. Intracochlear pressure (PIC) in the scala vestibuli (PSV) and tympani (PST) was measured with fiber optic pressure probes concurrently with cochlear promontory velocity (VProm) via laser Doppler vibrometry during stimulation provided with a closed-field loudspeaker or a BCI. Stimuli were pure tones between 120 and 10,240 Hz, and response magnitudes and phases for PIC and VProm were measured for air and bone conducted sound presentation.
resultsContralateral stimulation produced lower response magnitudes and longer delays than ipsilateral in all measures, particularly for high-frequency stimulation. Contralateral response magnitudes were lower than ipsilateral response magnitudes by up to 10 to 15 dB above ~2 kHz for a skin-penetrating abutment, which increased to 25 to 30 dB and extended to lower frequencies when applied with a transcutaneous (skin drive) attachment.
conclusionsTranscranial attenuation and delay suggest that ipsilateral stimulation will be dominant for frequencies over ~1 kHz, and that complex phase interactions will occur during bilateral or bimodal stimulation. These effects indicate a mechanism by which bilateral users could gain some bilateral advantage.
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.