ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2020
Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2020. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cochlear-implant simulated spectral degradation attenuates emotional responses to environmental sounds.International journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Review
- Spectral Resolution Development in Children With Normal Hearing and With Cochlear Implants: A Review of Behavioral Studies.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Review
- The Relationship Between Impedance, Programming and Word Recognition in a Large Clinical Dataset of Cochlear Implant Recipients.Trends in hearingArticle
- Single-Channel Focused Thresholds Relate to Vowel Identification in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Effect of Etiology, Array Type and Duration of Deafness on Focused Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose The goal of this study was to evaluate differences in the electrode-neuron interface as a function of hearing loss etiology in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) listeners with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) syndrome and in those with autosomal recessive connexin-26 mutations (DFNB1). Method Fifteen implanted ears (9 participants, 5 ears with EVA, 10 ears with DFNB1) were assessed. Single-channel auditory detection thresholds were measured using broad and spatially focused electrode configurations (steered quadrupolar; focusing coefficients = 0 and 0.9). Cochlear resistivity estimates were obtained via electrode impedances and electrical field imaging. Between-group differences were evaluated using linear mixed-effects models. Results Children with EVA had significantly higher auditory detection thresholds than children with DFNB1, irrespective of electrode configuration. Between-group differences in thresholds were more pronounced on apical electrodes than on basal electrodes. In the apex, electrode impedances and electrical field imaging values were higher for children with EVA than for those with DFNB1. Conclusions The electrode-neuron interface differs between pediatric CI listeners with DFNB1 and those with EVA. It is possible that optimal clinical interventions may depend, in part, on hearing loss etiology. Future investigations with large samples should investigate individualized CI programming strategies for listeners with EVA and DFNB1.
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.