Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36343534›Full record

ReviewHearing research2022

Comparison of response properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve reported in human listeners and in animal models.

Jeffrey Skidmore, Dyan Ramekers, Ian C Bruce, Shuman He

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Peripheral neural synchrony in post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant users.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jeffrey SkidmoreDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Eye and Ear Institute, The Ohio State University, 915 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43212, USA.
Dyan RamekersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Room G.02.531, P.O. Box 85500, Utrecht, GA 3508, the Netherlands; UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ian C BruceDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
Shuman HeDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Eye and Ear Institute, The Ohio State University, 915 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43212, USA; Department of Audiology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA. Electronic address: Shuman.He@osumc.edu.
McMaster University · CANationwide Children's Hospital · USThe Ohio State University · USUtrecht University · NL

Funding

NEURAL ENCODING AND AUDITORY PERCEPTION IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC016038 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HE, SHUMAN · 2017 to 2021
$2.3M
Neural Encoding and Auditory Processing of Electrical Stimulation in Pediatric Cochlear Implant UsersR01DC017846 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HE, SHUMAN · 2019 to 2024
$2.0M
AUDITORY NEURAL FUNCTION IN IMPLANTED PATIENTS WITH USHER SYNDROMER21DC019458 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HE, SHUMAN · 2021 to 2022
$433k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016038NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017846NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC019458
6 · The paper itself

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

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAnimalsCochlear NerveElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansMammalsModels, AnimalAnimal modelsAuditory nerveElectrically evoked auditory compound action potentialsElectrical stimulationHuman cochlear implant usersResponse characteristics

Identifiers

PMID36343534
PMCPMC9986845
OpenAlexW4308414333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.