Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34020316›Full record

ArticleHearing research2021

Using the electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) interphase gap effect to select electrode stimulation sites in cochlear implant users.

Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac, Teresa A Zwolan, Bryan E Pfingst

Abstract 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Review
  7. Assessing the Relationship Between Pitch Perception and Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Kara C Schvartz-LeyzacKresge Hearing Research Institute, Department of Otolaryngology, Michigan Medicine, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5616, United States; Hearing Rehabilitation Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Michigan Medicine, 475 W. Market Place, Building 1, Suite A, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, United States. Electronic address: leyzac@musc.edu.
Teresa A ZwolanHearing Rehabilitation Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Michigan Medicine, 475 W. Market Place, Building 1, Suite A, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, United States.
Bryan E PfingstKresge Hearing Research Institute, Department of Otolaryngology, Michigan Medicine, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5616, United States.

Funding

Functionally Important Features of the Electrically Stimulated CochleaR01DC015809 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PFINGST, BRYAN E · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
NIDCD NIH HHS L30 DC016498NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015809
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies in cochlear implanted animals show that the IPG Effect for ECAP growth functions (i.e., the magnitude of the change in ECAP amplitude growth function (AGF) slope or peak amplitude when the interphase gap (IPG) is increased) can be used to estimate the densities of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) near the electrode stimulation and recording sites. In humans, the same ECAP IPG Effect measures correlate with speech recognition performance. The present study examined the efficacy of selecting electrode sites for stimulation based on the IPG Effect, in order to improve performance of CI users on speech recognition tasks. We measured the ECAP IPG Effect for peak amplitude in adult (>18 years old) CI users (N= 18 ears), and created experimental programs to stimulate electrodes with either the highest or lowest ECAP IPG Effect for peak amplitude. Subjects also listened to a program without any electrodes deactivated. In a subset of subject ears (11/18), we compared performance differences between the experimental programs to post-operative computerized tomography (CT) scans to examine underlying factors that might contribute to the efficacy of an electrode site-selection approach. For sentences-in-noise, average performance was better when subjects listened to the experimental program that stimulated electrodes with the highest rather than the lowest IPG Effect for ECAP peak amplitude. A similar pattern was noted for transmission and perception of consonant place cues in a consonant recognition task. However, on average, performance when listening to a program with higher IPG Effect values was equal to that when listening with all electrodes activated. Results also suggest that scalar location (scala tympani or vestibuli) should be considered when using an ECAP-based electrode site-selection procedure to optimize CI performance.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAction PotentialsAdolescentAnimalsCochlear NerveElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansInterphaseCochlear implantsECAPsNeural healthSpeech recognition

Identifiers

PMID34020316
PMCPMC8372532

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.