ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Objectification of intracochlear electrocochleography using machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. 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.
- [A clinical study of electrocochleography monitoring for residual hearing retention during minimally invasive cochlear implant].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Amplitude and Phase Changes in Electrocochleographic Real-Time Recordings During Cochlear Implantation and Its Relation to Pre- and Postoperative Hearing.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025Article
- Review
- An intracochlear electrocochleography dataset - from raw data to objective analysis using deep learning.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Objective evaluation of intracochlear electrocochleography: repeatability, thresholds, and tonotopic patterns.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Electrocochleography (ECochG) measures inner ear potentials in response to acoustic stimulation. In patients with cochlear implant (CI), the technique is increasingly used to monitor residual inner ear function. So far, when analyzing ECochG potentials, the visual assessment has been the gold standard. However, visual assessment requires a high level of experience to interpret the signals. Furthermore, expert-dependent assessment leads to inconsistency and a lack of reproducibility. The aim of this study was to automate and objectify the analysis of cochlear microphonic (CM) signals in ECochG recordings. Methods: Prospective cohort study including 41 implanted ears with residual hearing. We measured ECochG potentials at four different electrodes and only at stable electrode positions (after full insertion or postoperatively). When stimulating acoustically, depending on the individual residual hearing, we used three different intensity levels of pure tones (i.e., supra-, near-, and sub-threshold stimulation; 250-2,000 Hz). Our aim was to obtain ECochG potentials with differing SNRs. To objectify the detection of CM signals, we compared three different methods: correlation analysis, Hotelling's T Results: For the visual analysis of ECochG recordings, the Fleiss' kappa value demonstrated a substantial to almost perfect agreement among the three examiners. We used the labels as ground truth to train our objectification methods. Thereby, the deep learning algorithm performed best (area under curve = 0.97, accuracy = 0.92), closely followed by Hotelling's T Conclusions: Objectification of ECochG signals is possible with the presented methods. Deep learning and Hotelling's T
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.