ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2020
The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of selective stimulation of apical electrodes on temporal pitch perception by cochlear implant recipients.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Stimulation Rate and Voice Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implants.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been suggested that a specialized high-temporal-acuity brainstem pathway can be activated by stimulating more apically in the cochlea than is achieved by cochlear implants (CIs) when programmed with contemporary clinical settings. We performed multiple experiments to test the effect on pitch perception of phantom stimulation and asymmetric current pulses, both supposedly stimulating beyond the most apical electrode of a CI. The two stimulus types were generated using a bipolar electrode pair, composed of the most apical electrode of the array and a neighboring, more basal electrode. Experiment 1 used a pitch-ranking procedure where neural excitation was shifted apically or basally using so-called phantom stimulation. No benefit of apical phantom stimulation was found on the highest rate up to which pitch ranks increased (upper limit), nor on the slopes of the pitch-ranking function above 300 pulses per second (pps). Experiment 2 used the same procedure to study the effects of apical pseudomonophasic pulses, where the locus of excitation was manipulated by changing stimulus polarity. A benefit of apical stimulation was obtained for the slopes above 300 pps. Experiment 3 used an adaptive rate discrimination procedure and found a small but significant benefit of both types of apical stimulation. Overall, the results show some benefit for apical stimulation on temporal pitch processing at high pulse rates but reveal that the effect is smaller and more variable across listeners than suggested by previous research. The results also provide some indication that the benefit of apical stimulation may decline over time since implantation.
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.