Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33647574›Full record

ArticleHearing research2021

Frequency following responses and rate change complexes in cochlear implant users.

Robin Gransier, Franҫois Guérit, Robert P Carlyon, Jan Wouters

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Frequency Following Responses to Electric Cochlear Stimulation in an Animal Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures of Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Normal-hearing Listeners.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Robin GransierKU Leuven, Department of Neurosciences, ExpORL, Herestraat 49, Box 721, Leuven 3000, Belgium. Electronic address: robin.gransier@kuleuven.be.
Franҫois GuéritCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom.
Jan WoutersKU Leuven, Department of Neurosciences, ExpORL, Herestraat 49, Box 721, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3Wellcome Trust 209243/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust RG91976
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The upper limit of rate-based pitch perception and rate discrimination can differ substantially across cochlear implant (CI) users. One potential reason for this difference is the presence of a biological limitation on temporal encoding in the electrically-stimulated auditory pathway, which can be inherent to the electrical stimulation itself and/or to the degenerative processes associated with hearing loss. Electrophysiological measures, like the electrically-evoked frequency following response (eFFR) and auditory change complex (eACC), could potentially provide valuable insights in the temporal processing limitations at the level of the brainstem and cortex in the electrically-stimulated auditory pathway. Obtaining these neural responses, free from stimulation artifacts, is challenging, especially when the neural response is phase-locked to the stimulation rate, as is the case for the eFFR. In this study we investigated the feasibility of measuring eFFRs, free from stimulation artifacts, to stimulation rates ranging from 94 to 196 pulses per second (pps) and eACCs to pulse rate changes ranging from 36 to 108%, when stimulating in a monopolar configuration. A high-sampling rate EEG system was used to measure the electrophysiological responses in five CI users, and linear interpolation was applied to remove the stimulation artifacts from the EEG. With this approach, we were able to measure eFFRs for pulse rates up to 162 pps and eACCs to the different rate changes. Our results show that it is feasible to measure electrophysiological responses, free from stimulation artifacts, that could potentially be used as neural correlates for rate and pitch processing in CI users.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing LossDeafnessElectric StimulationHumansPitch PerceptionArtifact removalAuditory change complexCochlear implantsFrequency following responsePitchRateStimulation artifactsTemporal processing

Identifiers

PMID33647574
PMCPMC8052190
OpenAlexW3130011680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.