ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2022
Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential in Adults With Cochlear Implants: A Comparison With Adults With Normal Hearing.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials as Biomarkers of Auditory Maturation in Children with Cochlear Implants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct recording of electrically evoked cortical potentials from cochlear implants demonstrates feasibility and clinical relevance in pediatric users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Endolymphatic hydrops asymmetry distinguishes patients with Meniere's disease from normal controls with high sensitivity and specificity.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo examine the maturational status of the auditory cortex in adults with cochlear implants (CIs) using the latencies of the P1, N1, and P2 components of cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs). SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 25 adults with CIs and 25 age-matched, normal-hearing control subjects participated in this study. Specifically, patients with CIs were divided into three groups depending on their age of deafness onset: Group A comprised patients with prelingual deafness who had received CI during early childhood (n=7), Group B comprised patients with early childhood-onset, progressive deafness who had received CI during childhood (n=6), and Group C comprised patients with adult-onset deafness (n=12). The P1, N1, and P2 latencies of their CAEPs were then compared between CI patients and normal-hearing subjects.
resultsAll participants showed clear CAEP responses. P1 and N1 latencies in Group A and Group C patients were significantly longer than those in the control group. Meanwhile, Group B patients had significantly longer N1 and P2 latencies, as compared with those in the control group.
conclusionsPatients with prelingual deafness and those with early-childhood onset, progressive deafness who received CI developed primary and higher-order auditory areas postoperatively when they became adults. However, their auditory cortex maturational statuses seemed to be worse than that of normal-hearing individuals. Furthermore, adult patients with late-onset deafness might experience degenerative auditory cortex changes during the auditory deprivation period between deafness onset and cochlear implantation.
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.