Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34988867›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2022

Characterizing Polarity Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Demographic Effects and Potential Implications for Estimating Neural Health.

Michelle L Hughes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. An Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Marker for Local Spiral Ganglion Neuron Degeneration: The Failure Index.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michelle L HughesDepartment of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 276 Barkley Memorial Center, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA. mhughes3@unl.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2630-8823
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · US

Funding

PHYSIOLOGY AS A POTENTIAL PREDICTOR OF PERCEPTION IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTSR01DC009595 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI HUGHES, MICHELLE L · 2009 to 2017
$2.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stimulus polarity can affect both physiological and perceptual measures in cochlear-implant recipients. Large differences between polarities for various outcome measures (e.g., eCAP threshold, amplitude, or slope) theoretically reflect poorer neural health, whereas smaller differences reflect better neural health. Therefore, we expect large polarity effects to be correlated with other measures shown to contribute to poor neural health, such as advanced age or prolonged deafness. Our earlier studies using the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) demonstrated differences in polarity effects between users of Cochlear and Advanced Bionics devices when device-specific clinical pulse designs were used. Since the stimuli differed slightly between devices, the first goal of this study was to determine whether small, clinically relevant differences in pulse phase duration (PD) have a significant impact on eCAP polarity effects to potentially explain the device differences observed previously. Polarity effects were quantified as the difference in eCAP thresholds, mean normalized amplitudes, and slope of the amplitude growth function obtained for anodic-first versus cathodic-first biphasic pulses. The results showed that small variations in PD did not explain the observed differences in eCAP polarity effects between devices. Therefore, eCAP polarity sensitivity measures are relatively robust to small differences in pulse parameters. However, it remains unclear what underlies the observed manufacturer differences, which may limit the utility of eCAP polarity sensitivity measures. The second goal was to characterize polarity sensitivity in a large group of CI recipients (65 ears) to relate polarity sensitivity to age and duration of deafness as a proxy for neural health. The same pulse parameters were used for both device groups. The only significant predictors of eCAP polarity effects were age for threshold and amplitude polarity effects for Cochlear recipients and age and duration of deafness for slope for AB recipients. However, three of these four correlations were in the opposite direction of what was expected. These results suggest that eCAP polarity sensitivity measures likely reflect different mechanisms than the effects that age and duration of deafness induce on the peripheral auditory system.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessAction PotentialsCochlear NerveDemographyElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansageduration of deafnesselectrically evoked compound action potentialpolarity sensitivitypulse phase duration

Identifiers

PMID34988867
PMCPMC8964872
OpenAlexW4205090405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.