ArticleTrends in hearing
The Perception of Ramped Pulse Shapes in Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Power-efficient ramped stimulation in a fully implantable cochlear implant.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Electrical equivalent circuit for analyzing the effect of signal shape on power distribution in cochlear implant electrodes and surrounding tissue.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biomimetic Exogenous "Tissue Batteries" as Artificial Power Sources for Implantable Bioelectronic Devices Manufacturing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- What Is the Benefit of Ramped Pulse Shapes for Activating Auditory Cortex Neurons? An Electrophysiological Study in an Animal Model of Cochlear Implant.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Comparison of response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve reported in human listeners and in animal models.Hearing research · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The electric stimulation provided by current cochlear implants (CI) is not power efficient. One underlying problem is the poor efficiency by which information from electric pulses is transformed into auditory nerve responses. A novel stimulation paradigm using ramped pulse shapes has recently been proposed to remedy this inefficiency. The primary motivation is a better biophysical fit to spiral ganglion neurons with ramped pulses compared to the rectangular pulses used in most contemporary CIs. Here, we tested the hypotheses that ramped pulses provide more efficient stimulation compared to rectangular pulses and that a rising ramp is more efficient than a declining ramp. Rectangular, rising ramped and declining ramped pulse shapes were compared in terms of charge efficiency and discriminability, and threshold variability in seven CI listeners. The tasks included single-channel threshold detection, loudness-balancing, discrimination of pulse shapes, and threshold measurement across the electrode array. Results showed that reduced charge, but increased peak current amplitudes, was required at threshold and most comfortable levels with ramped pulses relative to rectangular pulses. Furthermore, only one subject could reliably discriminate between equally-loud ramped and rectangular pulses, suggesting variations in neural activation patterns between pulse shapes in that participant. No significant difference was found between rising and declining ramped pulses across all tests. In summary, the present findings show some benefits of charge efficiency with ramped pulses relative to rectangular pulses, that the direction of a ramped slope is of less importance, and that most participants could not perceive a difference between pulse shapes.
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.