ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2023
Direct Elicitation of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials by Electrical Stimulation and Their Use to Verify the Most Comfortable Level of Stimulation in 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct recording of electrically evoked cortical potentials from cochlear implants demonstrates feasibility and clinical relevance in pediatric users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The intersubject reliability of cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) in pediatric cochlear implant recipients: comparisons between acoustic and electrical stimulations.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 · 2025Article
- Association between cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded directly through cochlear implants and post-implantation auditory and speech outcomes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Intraoperative Compound Action Potentials as a Predictor of Postoperative Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2025Article
- Tympanic Pre-Operative Electrically Evoked Auditory Late Response (TympEALR) as an Alternative to Trans-Tympanic Tests Using Anesthesia in Cochlear Implant Candidacy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Investigating the effect of cochlear implant usage metrics on cortical auditory-evoked potential responses in adult recipients post-implantation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Electrically evoked late latency response using single electrode stimulation and its relation to speech perception among paediatric cochlear implant users.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study was designed to investigate the use of electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (eCAEPs) as a tool for cochlear implant (CI) verification, the relationships between the site and intensity of stimulation and the detection rates and morphologies of eCAEPs as well as investigate whether correlations exist between the morphologies of eCAEPs and speech perception in quiet and in noise, duration of hearing loss, age at implantation, whether the hearing loss bilateral or single-sided and the electrode current level required to elicit MCL stimulation.
methods32 adult unilateral CI users with postlingual hearing loss were enrolled. The stimuli were 1 kHz biphasic alternating pulses and were presented at either the behaviorally measured MCL or 50% of this value (MCL0.5) via the CI fitting software. Pulses were directed to apical, medial, or basal electrodes. CAEPs were recorded from a scalp electrode placed at the vertex, low forehead, and contralateral mastoid and were evaluated by two electrophysiologists.
resultsOverall, eCAEPs could be detected in 31/32 users when stimulating at MCL, and in 29/32 users when stimulating at MCL0.5. The detection rates were 31, 31, and 28/32 for apical, medial, and basal stimulation at MCL, and 29, 29, and 26/32 at MCL0.5. Significant differences in eCAEP amplitudes and latencies were observed across electrodes and stimulation levels. No significant correlations were found between eCAEP latencies and amplitudes and user age, duration of deafness prior to CI surgery, or with bilateral versus single-sided hearing loss, nor with the charge level required to elicit MCL, or with speech perception scores in quiet. Peak latencies correlated with speech perception scores in some configurations of speech-in-noise.
conclusioneCAEPs can readily be elicited in the majority of adult CI users and show normal waveform characteristics at stimulation levels corresponding to MCL, as well as at basal, medial, and apical electrode stimulation sites. Neither the latencies nor amplitudes of eCAEPs are confounded by variables of age, duration of deafness prior to CI surgery, or the laterality of hearing loss. eCAEPs are a useful, objective method evaluate sound perception in CI users.
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.