ArticleHearing research2021
Frequency following responses and rate change complexes in cochlear implant users.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Missing Data Gap Imputation Methods in Electroencephalogram (EEG) Signals: A Systematic Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Frequency Following Responses to Electric Cochlear Stimulation in an Animal Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Applications and Challenges of Auditory Brain-Computer Interfaces in Objective Auditory Assessments for Pediatric Cochlear Implants.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2025Review
- 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
- Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in an Animal Model: Psychophysics and Scalp Recordings : Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Cat.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Towards biomarker-based optimization of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Simultaneous subcortical and cortical electrophysiological recordings of spectro-temporal processing in humans.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.