Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37123376›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Imaging-based frequency mapping for cochlear implants - Evaluated using a daily randomized controlled trial.

Lars Lambriks, Marc van Hoof, Joke Debruyne, Miranda Janssen, Josef Chalupper, Kiki van der Heijden, Janny Hof, Katja Hellingman, Elke Devocht, Erwin George

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Exploring Anatomy-Based Fitting for Cochlear Implantation: A Narrative Review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
    Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lars LambriksDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Marc van HoofDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Joke DebruyneDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Miranda JanssenDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Josef ChalupperAdvanced Bionics European Research Centre, Hannover, Germany.
Kiki van der HeijdenDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Janny HofDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Katja HellingmanDepartment of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Elke Devocht *Department of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Erwin George *Department of ENT/Audiology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Due to variation in electrode design, insertion depth and cochlear morphology, patients with a cochlear implant (CI) often have to adapt to a substantial mismatch between the characteristic response frequencies of cochlear neurons and the stimulus frequencies assigned to electrode contacts. We introduce an imaging-based fitting intervention, which aimed to reduce frequency-to-place mismatch by aligning frequency mapping with the tonotopic position of electrodes. Results were evaluated in a novel trial set-up where subjects crossed over between intervention and control using a daily within-patient randomized approach, immediately from the start of CI rehabilitation. Methods: Fourteen adult participants were included in this single-blinded, daily randomized clinical trial. Based on a fusion of pre-operative imaging and a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input was aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. That is, adjustments to the CI's frequency allocation table were made so electrical stimulation of frequencies matched as closely as possible with corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. For a period of three months, starting at first fit, a scheme was implemented whereby the blinded subject crossed over between the experimental and standard fitting program using a daily randomized wearing schedule, and thus effectively acted as their own control. Speech outcomes (such as speech intelligibility in quiet and noise, sound quality and listening effort) were measured with both settings throughout the study period. Results: On a group level, standard fitting obtained subject preference and showed superior results in all outcome measures. In contrast, two out of fourteen subjects preferred the imaging-based fitting and correspondingly had better speech understanding with this setting compared to standard fitting. Conclusion: On average, cochlear implant fitting based on individual tonotopy did not elicit higher speech intelligibility but variability in individual results strengthen the potential for individualized frequency fitting. The novel trial design proved to be a suitable method for evaluation of experimental interventions in a prospective trial setup with cochlear implants.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcone beam CTdaily randomizationfrequency allocation table (FAT)imaging-based fittingpitch mismatchrandomized controlled trial (RCT)tonotopy

Identifiers

PMID37123376
PMCPMC10133468
OpenAlexW4365448921

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.