ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2024
Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- On Balancing Sharpness of Excitation Patterns, Loudness, and Potential Effects on Speech Perception with Cochlear-Implant Current-Focussing Strategies.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Investigating the Effect of Blurring and Focusing Current in Cochlear Implant Users with the Panoramic ECAP Method.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAttempts to use current-focussing strategies with cochlear implants (CI) to reduce neural spread-of-excitation have met with only mixed success in human studies, in contrast to promising results in animal studies. Although this discrepancy could stem from between-species anatomical and aetiological differences, the masking experiments used in human studies may be insufficiently sensitive to differences in excitation-pattern width.
methodsWe used an interleaved-masking method to measure psychophysical excitation patterns in seven participants with four masker stimulation configurations: monopolar (MP), partial tripolar (pTP), a wider partial tripolar (pTP + 2), and, importantly, a condition (RP + 2) designed to produce a broader excitation pattern than MP. The probe was always in partial-tripolar configuration.
resultsWe found a significant effect of stimulation configuration on both the amount of on-site masking (mask and probe on same electrode; an indirect indicator of sharpness) and the difference between off-site and on-site masking. Differences were driven solely by RP + 2 producing a broader excitation pattern than the other configurations, whereas monopolar and the two current-focussing configurations did not statistically differ from each other.
conclusionA method that is sensitive enough to reveal a modest broadening in RP + 2 showed no evidence for sharpening with focussed stimulation. We also showed that although voltage recordings from the implant accurately predicted a broadening of the psychophysical excitation patterns with RP + 2, they wrongly predicted a strong sharpening with pTP + 2. We additionally argue, based on our recent research, that the interleaved-masking method can usefully be applied to non-human species and objective measures of CI excitation patterns.
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.