ArticleScientific reports2020
Electrophysiological assessment of temporal envelope processing in cochlear implant users.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overcoming the Challenge of Singing Among Cochlear Implant Users: An Analysis of the Disrupted Feedback Loop and Strategies for Improvement.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Frequency Following Responses to Electric Cochlear Stimulation in an Animal Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Psychoacoustic and electroencephalographic responses to changes in amplitude modulation depth and frequency in relation to speech recognition in cochlear implantees.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artifact removal by template subtraction enables recordings of the frequency following response in cochlear-implant users.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses.Hearing research · 2023Article
- Using Interleaved Stimulation and EEG to Measure Temporal Smoothing and Growth of the Sustained Neural Response to Cochlear-Implant Stimulation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Article
- Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures of Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Normal-hearing Listeners.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Article
- Causal Relationship between the Right Auditory Cortex and Speech-Evoked Envelope-Following Response: Evidence from Combined Transcranial Stimulation and Electroencephalography.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022Article
- Frequency following responses and rate change complexes in cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2021Article
- Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021Article
- Stimulus-evoked phase-locked activity along the human auditory pathway strongly varies across individuals.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear-implant (CI) users rely on temporal envelope modulations (TEMs) to understand speech, and clinical outcomes depend on the accuracy with which these TEMs are encoded by the electrically-stimulated neural ensembles. Non-invasive EEG measures of this encoding could help clinicians identify and disable electrodes that evoke poor neural responses so as to improve CI outcomes. However, recording EEG during CI stimulation reveals huge stimulation artifacts that are up to orders of magnitude larger than the neural response. Here we used a custom-built EEG system having an exceptionally high sample rate to accurately measure the artefact, which we then removed using linear interpolation so as to reveal the neural response during continuous electrical stimulation. In ten adult CI users, we measured the 40-Hz electrically evoked auditory steady-state response (eASSR) and electrically evoked auditory change complex (eACC) to amplitude-modulated 900-pulses-per-second pulse trains, stimulated in monopolar mode (i.e. the clinical default), and at different modulation depths. We successfully measured artifact-free 40-Hz eASSRs and eACCs. Moreover, we found that the 40-Hz eASSR, in contrast to the eACC, showed substantial responses even at shallow modulation depths. We argue that the 40-Hz eASSR is a clinically feasible objective measure to assess TEM encoding in CI users.
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.