ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Stimulation conditions leading to electrical vestibular co-stimulation in cochlear implant users.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- A case series shows a relation between intracochlear electric field distribution and vestibular co-stimulation with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The neural basis of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. The cVEMP is a specific indicator of saccular function.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Stimulation conditions leading to electrical vestibular co-stimulation in cochlear implant users.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study objective was to investigate the influence of electrical stimulus properties on cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials to electrical stimulation by cochlear implants (e-cVEMPs, e-oVEMPs). Methods: E-VEMPs were recorded in adult Nucleus cochlear implant (CI) patients using electric pulse trains (4 biphasic pulses at 1000 Hz burst rate). Ground path and stimulation electrodes were varied between monopolar stimulation at basal electrode contact E3 (MP1 + 2 E3), monopolar stimulation at apical electrode contact E20 (MP1 + 2 E20), and bipolar transmodiolar stimulation between E3 and E14 (BP E3-E14). The electric pulse train was further varied to 2 pulses at 1000 Hz, 2 pulses at 500 Hz, and a single pulse, in patients with present e-VEMP responses. VEMPs to bone-conducted vibration (BCV) were recorded as reference in all participants. Results: Measurements were conducted in 30 ears of 27 participants (mean age 49.3 years, SD 12.7 years). E-VEMPs were present in 13 ears (43%). 5 of the 13 cases showed e-VEMPs but no BCV evoked VEMPs. Response numbers increased with increasing stimulation levels. The highest response rate of 40% was obtained for MP1 + 2 E3 stimulation. Stimulus variation did not affect response numbers. E-VEMP amplitudes were comparable to BCV-stimulated VEMPs. Latencies were up to 3.1 ms shorter for electric stimulation. Some patients showed e-VEMP thresholds close to or below the electric hearing threshold level. Conclusion: The occurrence of e-VEMPs is dependent on current path and stimulation level. Vestibular co-stimulation by the CI is more likely in patients with high stimulation levels and for monopolar stimulation of basal electrode contacts. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.