Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345947›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

Electrically evoked late latency response using single electrode stimulation and its relation to speech perception among paediatric cochlear implant users.

Palani Saravanan, Neelamegarajan Devi, Chinnaraj Geetha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

3 authors.

Palani SaravananDepartment of Audiology, Centre for Hearing Sciences (CHS), All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH), Mysuru, India.
Neelamegarajan DeviDepartment of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH), Mysuru, India.
Chinnaraj GeethaDepartment of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH), Mysuru, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Aided auditory late latency response (LLR) serves as an objective tool for evaluating auditory cortical maturation following cochlear implantation in children. While aided LLR is commonly measured using sound-field acoustic stimulation, recording electrically evoked LLR (eLLR) offer distinct advantages, such as improved stimulus control and the capability for single electrode stimulation. Hence, the study aimed to compare eLLR responses with single electrode stimulation in the apical, middle, and basal regions and to evaluate their relationship with speech perception in paediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Method: eLLR responses with single electrode stimulation were measured in 27 paediatric unilateral CI users with an active recording electrode placed at Cz. The stimuli consisted of 36 msec biphasic pulse trains presented across three electrode sites (apical-E20, middle-E11, and basal-E03). eLLR responses were compared across these electrode sites, and the relationship between speech recognition scores in quiet and age at implantation with eLLR components was evaluated. Results: eLLR responses were detected in 77 out of 81 tested electrodes of all participants combined (27 for apical, 26 for middle, and 24 for basal stimulation). There were no significant differences in P1, N1 latencies and P1 amplitude across electrode site. However, significantly larger N1 and P1-N1 amplitudes were observed for apical stimulations compared to basal stimulations. No differences in N1 amplitude were found between middle and apical stimulations, and the P1-N1 amplitude was significantly larger for middle compared to basal electrode stimulation, with no difference between the apical and middle electrodes stimulation. A moderate positive correlation was present between speech recognition scores in quiet and both N1, P1-N1 amplitudes for apical stimulation. Age at implantation was negatively correlated with N1 amplitude for the apical and P1-N1 amplitude for basal stimulation. Discussion: eLLR responses could be elicited in majority of paediatric CI users across electrode sites. Variations in eLLR responses across electrode sites suggest disparities in auditory cortical maturation. The findings underscore the significance of the N1 biomarker in evaluating higher-order auditory cortical development. Therefore, utilizing eLLR with single electrode stimulation may serve as a valuable tool for assessing post-cochlear implantation maturational changes in paediatric populations.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcortical auditory evoked potentialselectrically evoked late latency responseP1-N1 responsesingle electrode stimulationspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID39345947
PMCPMC11427271

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.