Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31864104›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2020

Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users.

Erin Glennon, Mario A Svirsky, Robert C Froemke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Cochlear implantation in partial deafness: a case series with preoperatively substantial residual hearing at high frequencies.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 · 2025
    Article
  7. A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Erin GlennonSkirball Institute for Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Neuroscience and Physiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Mario A SvirskySkirball Institute for Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Neuroscience and Physiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: mario.svirsky@nyulangone.org.
Robert C FroemkeSkirball Institute for Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Neuroscience and Physiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute Faculty Scholar, USA. Electronic address: robert.froemke@med.nyu.edu.

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAININGT32GM007308 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI PHILIPS, MARK REID · 1985 to 2019
$23.2M
MODELS OF SPEECH PERCEPTION BY COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC003937 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SVIRSKY, MARIO A · 1999 to 2020
$7.2M
Synaptic basis of perceptual learning with cochlear implants in rat auditory cortex - RenewalR01DC012557 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Robert Crooks Froemke, Mario A Svirsky · 2013 to 2026
$7.0M
Cochlear implants and listening effort: the interaction of cognitive and sensory constraintsR01DC016834 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Jonathan E Peelle, Mario A Svirsky · 2018 to 2026
$3.8M
Neuromodulation and Plasticity for a Rodent Model of Cochlear Implant UseF30DC017351 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GLENNON, ERIN · 2018 to 2020
$150k
NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC017351NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003937NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012557NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016834NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implants are one of the most successful neuroprosthetic devices that have been developed to date. Profoundly deaf patients can achieve speech perception after complete loss of sensory input. Despite the improvements many patients experience, there is still a large degree of outcome variability. It has been proposed that central plasticity may be a major factor in the different levels of benefit that patients experience. However, the neural mechanisms of how plasticity impacts cochlear implant learning and the degree of plasticity's influence remain unknown. Here, we review the human and animal research on three of the main ways that central plasticity affects cochlear implant outcomes.

Indexed as

Auditory CortexCochlear ImplantsDeafnessAnimalsCochlear ImplantationHumansNeuronal PlasticitySpeech Perception

Identifiers

PMID31864104
PMCPMC7002179

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.