Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31678892›Full record

ArticleHearing research2019

Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.

Viral D Tejani, Rachael L Carroll, Paul J Abbas, Carolyn J Brown

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Viral D TejaniOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA; Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: viral-tejani@uiowa.edu.
Rachael L CarrollOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA; Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Paul J AbbasOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA; Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Carolyn J BrownOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA; Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Funding

Speech Production &LanguageP50DC000242 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Bob McMurray · 1989 to 2026
$58.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report explores the impact of recording electrode position and stimulus frequency on intracochlear electrocochleography (ECoG) responses recorded from six Nucleus L24 Hybrid CI users. Acoustic tone bursts (250 Hz, 500 Hz, 750 Hz, and 1000 Hz) were presented to the implanted ear via an insert earphone. Recordings were obtained from intracochlear electrodes 6 (most basal), 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 (most apical). Responses to condensation and rarefaction stimuli were subtracted from one another to emphasize hair cell responses (CM/DIF) and added to one another to emphasize neural responses (ANN/SUM). For a fixed stimulus frequency, the CM/DIF and ANN/SUM magnitudes increased as the recording electrode moved apically. For a fixed recording electrode, as the stimulus frequency was lowered, response magnitudes increased. The CM/DIF and ANN/SUM response phase were generally stable across recording electrodes, although substantial phase shifts were noted for a few conditions. Given the recent interest in ECoG for assessing peripheral auditory function in CI users, the impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode position on response magnitude should be considered. Results suggest optimal ECoG responses are obtained using the most apical recording electrode and a low frequency acoustic stimulus (250 Hz or 500 Hz).

Indexed as

Audiometry, Evoked ResponseAuditory PerceptionCochlear ImplantsHearingAcoustic StimulationAgedAged, 80 and overCochlear ImplantationElectric StimulationHearing LossHumansMiddle AgedPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesPredictive Value of TestsProsthesis Design

Identifiers

PMID31678892
PMCPMC6913176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.