Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32032228›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Electrophysiological Estimates of the Electrode-Neuron Interface Differ Between Younger and Older Listeners With Cochlear Implants.

Kelly N Jahn, Julie G Arenberg

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dynamics of neural responsiveness in pediatric cochlear implant users.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Developing a Calibration Method to Minimize Variability in Auditory Evoked Potentials.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelly N JahnDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Julie G ArenbergDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

Auditory Neuroscience Traning ProgramT32DC005361 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Adrian KC Lee, DAVID J PERKEL · 2002 to 2026
$8.8M
Perceptual implications of cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfacesR01DC012142 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JULIE G Arenberg · 2012 to 2026
$6.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012142NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to quantify differences in evoked potential correlates of spiral ganglion neuron (SGN) density between younger and older individuals with cochlear implants (CIs) using the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP). In human temporal bone studies and in animal models, SGN density is the lowest in older subjects and in those who experienced long durations of deafness during life. SGN density also varies as a function of age at implantation and hearing loss etiology. Taken together, it is likely that younger listeners who were deafened and implanted during childhood have denser populations of SGNs than older individuals who were deafened and implanted later in life. In animals, ECAP amplitudes, amplitude growth function (AGF) slopes, and their sensitivity to stimulus interphase gap (IPG) are predictive of SGN density. The authors hypothesized that younger listeners who were deafened and implanted as children would demonstrate larger ECAP amplitudes, steeper AGF slopes, and greater IPG sensitivity than older, adult-deafened and implanted listeners.

designData were obtained from 22 implanted ears (18 individuals). Thirteen ears (9 individuals) were deafened and implanted as children (child-implanted group), and nine ears (9 individuals) were deafened and implanted as adults (adult-implanted group). The groups differed significantly on a number of demographic variables that are implicitly related to SGN density: (1) chronological age; (2) age at implantation; and (3) duration of preimplantation hearing loss. ECAP amplitudes, AGF linear slopes, and thresholds were assessed on a subset of electrodes in each ear in response to two IPGs (7 and 30 µsec). Speech recognition was assessed using a medial vowel identification task.

resultsCompared with the adult-implanted listeners, individuals in the child-implanted group demonstrated larger changes in ECAP amplitude when the IPG of the stimulus was increased from 7 to 30 µsec (i.e., greater IPG sensitivity). On average, child-implanted participants also had larger ECAP amplitudes and steeper AGF linear slopes than the adult-implanted participants, irrespective of IPG. IPG sensitivity for AGF linear slope and ECAP threshold did not differ between age groups. Vowel recognition performance was not correlated with any of the ECAP measures assessed in this study.

conclusionsThe results of this study support the theory that young CI listeners who were deafened and implanted during childhood may have denser neural populations than older listeners who were deafened and implanted as adults. Potential between-group differences in SGN integrity emphasize a need to investigate optimized CI programming parameters for younger and older listeners.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAction PotentialsAdultChildElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansNeurons

Identifiers

PMID32032228
PMCPMC10424265
OpenAlexW3005127664

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.