ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2023
Acoustic Change Complex Recorded in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective verification of continuous speech sound discrimination using the acoustic change complex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- The effect of development on cortical auditory evoked potentials in normal hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExpanding cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria and advances in electrode arrays and soft surgical techniques have increased the number of CI recipients who have residual low-frequency hearing. Objective measures such as obligatory cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) may help clinicians make more tailored recommendations to recipients regarding optimal listening mode. As a step toward this goal, this study investigated how CAEPs measured from hybrid CI users differ in two listening modes: acoustic alone (A-alone) versus acoustic plus electric (A + E).
methodsEight successful hybrid CI users participated in this study. Two CAEPs, the P1-N1-P2 and the acoustic change complex (ACC), were measured simultaneously in response to the onset and change of a series of different and spectrally complex acoustic signals, in each of the two listening modes (A-alone and A + E). We examined the effects of listening mode and stimulus type on the onset and ACC N1-P2 amplitudes and peak latencies.
resultsACC amplitudes in hybrid CI users significantly differed as a function of listening mode and stimulus type. ACC responses in A + E were larger than those in the A-alone mode. This was most evident for stimuli involving a change from low to high frequency.
conclusionsResults of this study showed that the ACC varies as a function of listening mode and stimulus type. This finding suggests that the ACC can be used as a physiologic, objective measure of the benefit of hybrid CIs, potentially supporting clinicians in making clinical recommendations on individualized listening mode, or to document subjective preference for a given listening mode. Further research into this potential clinical application in a range of hybrid recipients and/or long electrode users who have residual low-frequency hearing is warranted.
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.