ArticleEar and hearing
The Effect of Increasing Interphase Gap on N1 Latency of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential and the Stimulation Level Offset in Human Cochlear Implant Users.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrically evoked compound action potentials in adult and pediatric cochlear implant users: II. Assessing cochlear nerve health status with the interphase gap effect and the phase locking value.Hearing research · 2026Article
- The Interphase Gap Effect in Cochlear Implant Users: Biological Basis, Parameter Selection, Analytical Methods, and Quantitative Scales.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparison of response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve reported in human listeners and in animal models.Hearing research · 2022Review
- Interpreting the interphase gap effect on the electrically evoked compound action potential.JASA express letters · 2022Article
- BDNF Outperforms TrkB Agonist 7,8,3'-THF in Preserving the Auditory Nerve in Deafened Guinea Pigs.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- A Prospective, Multicentre Case-Control Trial Examining Factors That Explain Variable Clinical Performance in Post Lingual Adult CI Recipients.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study reports two potential biomarkers of the physiological status of the cochlear nerve (CN) in cochlear implant users.
designThis project represents a complementary analysis on a subset of electrophysiological data from our recently published study. This study compared changes in N1 latency and stimulation level (i.e., N1 latency offset and stimulation level offset) with increasing interphase gap of a biphasic pulse between children with cochlear nerve deficiency and children with normal-sized CNs.
resultsChildren with cochlear nerve deficiency showed smaller N1 latency offsets and larger stimulation level offsets than children with normal-sized CNs at all electrode locations tested.
conclusionsThe N1 latency and stimulation level offsets differ in two patient populations with different physiological statuses of the CN. These parameters may be useful for evaluating CN function in individual cochlear implant patients.
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.