ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2019
First biocompatibility margins for optical stimulation at the eardrum via 532-nm laser pulses in a mouse model.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optical induction of auditory perception via cochlear stimulation in Mongolian gerbils without genetic modification.iScience · 2026Article
- Intensity modulation of frequency-specific optoacoustic stimulation at the peripheral hearing level.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Article
- Optoacoustically induced auditory brainstem responses in the mouse model enhanced through an absorbing film.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Article
- A Micron-Sized Laser Photothermal Effect Evaluation System and Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Wavelength-specific optoacoustic-induced vibrations of the guinea pig tympanic membrane.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Article
- Cytotoxicity studies of an optoacoustic stimulation strategy for the development of laser-based hearing aids.Journal of biomedical optics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hearing impairment affects ∼460 million people worldwide. Conservative therapies, such as hearing aids, bone conduction systems, and middle ear implants, do not always sufficiently compensate for this deficit. The optical stimulation is currently under investigation as an alternative stimulation strategy for the activation of the hearing system. To assess the biocompatibility margins of this emerging technology, we established a method applicable in whole-mount preparations of murine tympanic membranes (TM). We irradiated the TM of anesthetized mice with 532-nm laser pulses at an average power of 50, 89, 99, and 125 mW at two different locations of the TM and monitored the hearing function with auditory brainstem responses. Laser-power-dependent negative side effects to the TM were observed at power levels exceeding 89 mW. Although we did not find any significant negative effects of optical stimulation on the hearing function in these mice, based on the histology results further studies are necessary for optimization of the used parameters.
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.