Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34019310›Full record

ArticleThe Laryngoscope2021

Intracochlear Electrocochleography and Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Carla V Valenzuela, Jeffery T Lichtenhan, Shannon M Lefler, Kanthaiah Koka, Craig A Buchman, Amanda J Ortmann

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Laryngoscope, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [A clinical study of electrocochleography monitoring for residual hearing retention during minimally invasive cochlear implant].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carla V ValenzuelaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0001-7571-1171
Jeffery T LichtenhanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Shannon M LeflerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Kanthaiah KokaDepartment of Research and Technology, Advanced Bionics Corporation, Valencia, California, U.S.A.
Craig A BuchmanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Amanda J OrtmannDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Washington University in St. Louis · USAdvanced Technology and Research Corporation (United States) · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
DEVELOPMENT OF CLINICIAN/RESEARCHERS IN ACADEMIC ENTT32DC000022 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PICCIRILLO, JAY F. · 1989 to 2022
$5.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives/hypothesisPrevious studies have demonstrated that electrocochleography (ECochG) measurements made at the round window prior to cochlear implant (CI) electrode insertion can account for 47% of the variability in 6-month speech perception scores. Recent advances have made it possible to use the apical CI electrode to record intracochlear responses to acoustic stimuli. Study objectives were to determine 1) the relationship between intracochlear ECochG response amplitudes and 6-month speech perception scores and 2) to determine the relationship between behavioral auditory thresholds and ECochG threshold estimates. The hypothesis was that intracochlear ECochG response amplitudes made immediately after electrode insertion would be larger than historical controls (at the extracochlear site) and explain more variability in speech perception scores. STUDY

designProspective case series.

methodsTwenty-two adult CI recipients with varying degrees of low-frequency hearing had intracochlear ECochG measurements made immediately after CI electrode insertion using 110 dB SPL tone bursts. Tone bursts were centered at five octave-spaced frequencies between 125 and 2,000 Hz.

resultsThere was no association between intracochlear ECochG response amplitudes and speech perception scores. But, the data suggest a mild to moderate relationship between preoperative behavioral audiometric testing and intraoperative ECochG threshold estimates.

conclusionPerforming intracochlear ECochG is highly feasible and results in larger response amplitudes, but performing ECochG before, rather than after, CI insertion may provide a more accurate assessment of a patient's speech perception potential. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E2681-E2688, 2021.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Evoked ResponseAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdElectrodes, ImplantedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRound Window, Earcochlear implant performanceElectrocochleographyintracochlear

Identifiers

PMID34019310
PMCPMC8440360
OpenAlexW3161180871

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.