Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38486005›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Artifact removal by template subtraction enables recordings of the frequency following response in cochlear-implant users.

Robin Gransier, Robert P Carlyon, Matthew L Richardson, John C Middlebrooks, Jan Wouters

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advanced Brain-on-a-Chip for Wetware Computing: A Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  2. Frequency Following Responses to Electric Cochlear Stimulation in an Animal Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Robin GransierExpORL, Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Robert P CarlyonCambridge Hearing Group, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew L RichardsonDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
John C MiddlebrooksDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Jan WoutersExpORL, Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. jan.wouters@kuleuven.be.
University of California, Irvine · USVIB-KU Leuven Center for Brain & Disease Research · BEMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust RG91976
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrically evoked frequency-following responses (eFFRs) provide insight in the phase-locking ability of brainstem of cochlear-implant (CI) users. eFFRs can potentially be used to gain insight in the individual differences in the biological limitation on temporal encoding of the electrically stimulated auditory pathway, which can be inherent to the electrical stimulation itself and/or the degenerative processes associated with hearing loss. One of the major challenge of measuring eFFRs in CI users is the process of isolating the stimulation artifact from the neural response, as both the response and the artifact overlap in time and have similar frequency characteristics. Here we introduce a new artifact removal method based on template subtraction that successfully removes the stimulation artifacts from the recordings when CI users are stimulated with pulse trains from 128 to 300 pulses per second in a monopolar configuration. Our results show that, although artifact removal was successful in all CI users, the phase-locking ability of the brainstem to the different pulse rates, as assessed with the eFFR differed substantially across participants. These results show that the eFFR can be measured, free from artifacts, in CI users and that they can be used to gain insight in individual differences in temporal processing of the electrically stimulated auditory pathway.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessHearing LossElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumans

Identifiers

PMID38486005
PMCPMC10940306
OpenAlexW4392811614

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.