Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36754938›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2023

Using Interleaved Stimulation and EEG to Measure Temporal Smoothing and Growth of the Sustained Neural Response to Cochlear-Implant Stimulation.

François Guérit, John M Deeks, Dorothée Arzounian, Robin Gransier, Jan Wouters, Robert P Carlyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

François GuéritCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
John M DeeksCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Dorothée ArzounianCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Robin GransierExpORL, Dept. of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan WoutersExpORL, Dept. of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. bob.carlyon@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6166-501X

Funding

Medical Research Council G116768Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_00030/4Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust RG91976
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two EEG experiments measured the sustained neural response to amplitude-modulated (AM) high-rate pulse trains presented to a single cochlear-implant (CI) electrode. Stimuli consisted of two interleaved pulse trains with AM rates F1 and F2 close to 80 and 120 Hz respectively, and where F2 = 1.5F1. Following Carlyon et al. (J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2021), we assume that such stimuli can produce a neural distortion response (NDR) at F0 = F2-F1 Hz if temporal dependencies ("smoothing") in the auditory system are followed by one or more neural nonlinearities. In experiment 1, the rate of each pulse train was 480 pps and the gap between pulses in the F1 and F2 pulse trains ranged from 0 to 984 µs. The NDR had a roughly constant amplitude for gaps between 0 and about 200-400 µs, and decreased for longer gaps. We argue that this result is consistent with a temporal dependency, such as facilitation, operating at the level of the auditory nerve and/or with co-incidence detection by cochlear-nucleus neurons. Experiment 2 first measured the NDR for stimuli at each listener's most comfortable level ("MCL") and for F0 = 37, 40, and 43 Hz. This revealed a group delay of about 42 ms, consistent with a thalamic/cortical source. We then showed that the NDR grew steeply with stimulus amplitude and, for most listeners, decreased by more than 12 dB between MCL and 75% of the listener's dynamic range. We argue that the NDR is a potentially useful objective estimate of MCL.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochlear NerveElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedElectroencephalographyALFIESCochlear implantEASSREEGElectrophysiologyNeural distortion response

Identifiers

PMID36754938
PMCPMC10121955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.