ArticleScientific reports2024
Artifact removal by template subtraction enables recordings of the frequency following response in cochlear-implant users.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Brain-on-a-Chip for Wetware Computing: A Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Frequency Following Responses to Electric Cochlear Stimulation in an Animal Model.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Limitations on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Users: A Compilation of Viewpoints.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
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.