ReviewHearing research2022
Comparison of response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve reported in human listeners and in animal models.
Review in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age-dependent Shifts in Spiral Ganglion Neuron Subtypes Are Associated with Interphase Gap-dependent Modulation of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials in Mice.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Review
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Effects of stimulus polarity on the local evoked potential in auditory brainstem implant users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Age effect on inter-pulse interval selection for ECAP measurement.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Polarity sensitivity to symmetric, biphasic monopolar pulses is not a reliable indicator of peripheral axonal degeneration in human cochlear implant users.Frontiers in audiology and otology · 2025Article
- Peripheral neural synchrony in post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant users.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Insights Into Electrophysiological Metrics of Cochlear Health in Cochlear Implant Users Using a Computational Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Article
- Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CIs) provide acoustic information to implanted patients by electrically stimulating nearby auditory nerve fibers (ANFs) which then transmit the information to higher-level neural structures for further processing and interpretation. Computational models that simulate ANF responses to CI stimuli enable the exploration of the mechanisms underlying CI performance beyond the capacity of in vivo experimentation alone. However, all ANF models developed to date utilize to some extent anatomical/morphometric data, biophysical properties and/or physiological data measured in non-human animal models. This review compares response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve (AN) in human listeners and different mammalian models. Properties of AN responses to single pulse stimulation, paired-pulse stimulation, and pulse-train stimulation are presented. While some AN response properties are similar between human listeners and animal models (e.g., increased AN sensitivity to single pulse stimuli with long interphase gaps), there are some significant differences. For example, the AN of most animal models is typically more sensitive to cathodic stimulation while the AN of human listeners is generally more sensitive to anodic stimulation. Additionally, there are substantial differences in the speed of recovery from neural adaptation between animal models and human listeners. Therefore, results from animal models cannot be simply translated to human listeners. Recognizing the differences in responses of the AN to electrical stimulation between humans and other mammals is an important step for creating ANF models that are more applicable to various human CI patient populations.
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.