Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33434815›Full record

ArticleHearing research2021

Assessing temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons in auditory brainstem and cochlear implant users.

Mahan Azadpour, William H Shapiro, J Thomas Roland, Mario A Svirsky

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of Responses to DCN vs. VCN Stimulation in a Mouse Model of the Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI).Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mahan AzadpourDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: mahan.azadpour@nyulangone.org.
William H ShapiroDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States.
J Thomas RolandDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States.
Mario A SvirskyDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States.
New York University · US

Funding

MODELS OF SPEECH PERCEPTION BY COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC003937 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SVIRSKY, MARIO A · 1999 to 2020
$7.2M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003937
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reasons why clinical outcomes with auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) are generally poorer than with cochlear implants (CIs) are still somewhat elusive. Prior work has focused on differences in processing of spectral information due to possibly poorer tonotopic representation and higher channel interaction with ABIs than with CIs. In contrast, this study examines the hypothesis that a potential contributing reason for poor speech perception in ABI users may be the relative lack of temporal responsiveness of the primary neurons that are stimulated by the ABI. The cochlear nucleus, the site of ABI stimulation, consists of different neuron types, most of which have much more complex responses than the auditory nerve neurons stimulated by a CI. Temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons was assessed in a group of ABI and CI users by measuring recovery of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from single-pulse forward masking. Slower ECAP recovery tended to be associated with poorer hearing outcomes in both groups. ABI subjects with the longest recovery time had no speech understanding or even no hearing sensation with their ABI device; speech perception for the one CI outlier with long ECAP recovery time was well below average. To the extent that ECAP recovery measures reveal temporal properties of the primary neurons that receive direct stimulation form neural prosthesis devices, they may provide a physiological underpinning for clinical outcomes of auditory implants. ECAP recovery measures may be used to determine which portions of the cochlear nucleus to stimulate, and possibly allow us to enhance the stimulation paradigms.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochlear NucleusAuditory Brain Stem ImplantsCochlear NerveElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansNeuronsAuditory brainstem implantCochlear implantElectrically evoked compound action potentialForward maskingTemporal recovery

Identifiers

PMID33434815
PMCPMC7855898
OpenAlexW3118371892

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.