ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Forward Electric Stimulation-Induced Interference in Intracochlear Electrocochleography of Acoustic Stimulation in the Cochlea of Guinea Pigs.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- ZH-ECochG Bode Plot: A Novel Approach to Visualize Electrocochleographic Data in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) uses amplified sound by a hearing aid to stimulate an apical low-frequency region of the cochlea and electrical current from a cochlear implant (CI) to stimulate the basal high-frequency region. EAS recipients had significantly improved speech perception, music appreciation, and hearing function in noise compared to those relying on CI electrical stimulation (ES) alone. However, the interaction between basal ES and apical acoustic stimulation (AS) in the cochlea potentially affects EAS advantages. To investigate ES-AS interaction, we designed a system that recorded the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and the auditory evoked potential (AEP). We used an intracochlear electrode array to deliver ES at the basal cochlea and detect intracochlear electrocochleography (iECochG) generated from apical AS. Within iECochG, 3 or 6 dB (double or quadruple intensity of ECAP threshold) electric stimulation, 1 ms-forward ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS compared to 0 dB ES. Notably, 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS, while 3 or 5 ms-forward ES did not change the CAP amplitudes. The elevation in CAP amplitude of 40 dB/4 kHz AS induced by 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES was significantly lower than that in 20 dB/4 kHz AS. With 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES, AS frequency and stimulating electrode location have no significant impact on relative CAP amplitudes of 20 dB AS. These results suggest that the basal forward ES and the following apical AS could produce a cumulative effect on the auditory nerve response.
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.