ArticlePloS one2023
An analysis of the spread of electric field within the cochlea for different devices including custom-made electrodes for subtotal cochleoectomy.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful radiosurgery for a growing vestibular schwannoma following partial resection of an ipsilateral transfundal inner ear schwannoma and cochlear implantation: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- 3D-Printed Electroanatomic Twins of Cadaveric Cochleae: A Platform for Cochlear Implant Testing.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative Impedance Gradient as a Physiological Indicator of Electrode-Neural Interface in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.Journal of otology · 2026Article
- Assessing Array-Type Differences in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Panoramic ECAP Method.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCochlear implants (CIs) can restore hearing not only in patients with profound hearing loss and deafness, but also in patients following tumour removal of intra-cochlear schwannomas. In such cases, design and placement differ from conventional electrode insertion, in which the cochlea remains filled with fluid. Despite these technical and surgical differences, previous studies have tended to show positive results in speech perception in tumour patients. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the ability to predict speech recognition outcomes using individual electric field spreads and to investigate worldwide unique tumour cases. STUDY
designIn a retrospective analysis in a university tertiary center electric field spreads were compared between two groups of electrode designs implanted between 2009 and 2020 i.e., between lateral wall electrodes and custom-made perimodiolar electrode carriers from the same company. The voltage gradients were analysed and grouped with speech recognition results.
resultsDifferences in electrical field spreads were found between lateral wall electrodes and the custom-made perimodiolar electrodes, whereas a significant influence of electric fields on scores in speech recognition cannot be demonstrated.
conclusionPrediction of speech recognition outcome based on electric field propagation results seems not feasible. Significant differences in field spread between electrode arrays can be clearly demonstrated. This observation and its relevance to hearing treatment and speech recognition should therefore be further investigated in upcoming studies.
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.