Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36852047›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Relationship between electrode position and temporal modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users: Are close electrodes always better?

Ning Zhou, Xuyang Shi, Omkar Dixit, Jill B Firszt, Timothy A Holden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of electrode array scalar dislocation after cochlear implant surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ning ZhouDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA.
Xuyang ShiDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA.
Omkar DixitDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA.
Jill B FirsztDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 63110, USA.
Timothy A HoldenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 63110, USA.

Funding

Using Psychophysical Methods to Understand and Improve Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant UsersR01DC017702 · NIDCD · EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY · PI ZHU, ZHEN · 2019 to 2022
$1.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporal modulation sensitivity has been studied extensively for cochlear implant (CI) users due to its strong correlation to speech recognition outcomes. Previous studies reported that temporal modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) vary across the tonotopic axis and attributed this variation to patchy neural survival. However, correlates of neural health identified in animal models depend on electrode position in humans. Nonetheless, the relationship between MDT and electrode location has not been explored. We tested 13 ears for the effect of distance on modulation sensitivity, specifically targeting the question of whether electrodes closer to the modiolus are universally beneficial. Participants in this study were postlingually deafened and users of Cochlear Nucleus CIs. The distance of each electrode from the medial wall (MW) of the cochlea and mid-modiolar axis (MMA) was measured from scans obtained using computerized tomography (CT) imaging. The distance measures were correlated with slopes of spatial tuning curves measured on selected electrodes to investigate if electrode position accounts, at least in part, for the width of neural excitation. In accordance with previous findings, electrode position explained 24% of the variance in slopes of the spatial tuning curves. All functioning electrodes were also measured for MDTs. Five ears showed a positive correlation between MDTs and at least one distance measure across the array; 6 ears showed negative correlations and the remaining two ears showed no relationship. The ears showing positive MDT-distance correlations, thus benefiting from electrodes being close to the neural elements, were those who performed better on the two speech recognition measures, i.e., speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and recognition of the AzBio sentences. These results could suggest that ears able to take advantage of the proximal placement of electrodes are likely to have better speech recognition outcomes. Previous histological studies of humans demonstrated that speech recognition is correlated with spiral ganglion cell counts. Alternatively, ears with good speech recognition outcomes may have good overall neural health, which is a precondition for close electrodes to produce spatially confined neural excitation patterns that facilitate modulation sensitivity. These findings suggest that the methods to reduce channel interaction, e.g., perimodiolar electrode array or current focusing, may only be beneficial for a subgroup of CI users. Additionally, it suggests that estimating neural survival preoperatively is important for choosing the most appropriate electrode array type (perimodiolar vs. lateral wall) for optimal implant function.

Indexed as

Computerized tomography (CT)Electrode locationMid-modiolar axis (MMA)Modulation detection thresholds (MDTs)Perimodiolar electrodesSpeech reception thresholds (SRTs)

Identifiers

PMID36852047
PMCPMC9958279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.