ArticleScientific reports2024
Validation of direct recording of electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials through a cochlear implant system.
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.
- Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials as Biomarkers of Auditory Maturation in Children with Cochlear Implants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct recording of electrically evoked cortical potentials from cochlear implants demonstrates feasibility and clinical relevance in pediatric users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded directly through cochlear implants and post-implantation auditory and speech outcomes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implants (CI) are one of the most successful treatments available to enable individuals with severe to profound hearing loss to regain access to the world of sound. This is accomplished through the electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using electrodes implanted inside the cochlea. The use of subjective user feedback makes the process of fitting these devices much more challenging in cases where users are not able to actively or accurately report their experience (e.g. pediatrics), making an objective measurement that reflects the accuracy or effectiveness of a program quite attractive. We recorded one objective measure, the electrically-stimulated cortical auditory evoked potential (eCAEP), non-invasively using the CI in response to a simulated speech sound in seven adult participants and compared it to their eCAEP recorded using a scalp EEG set-up. The eCAEPs recorded with CI electrodes were comparable to scalp recorded eCAEPs (grand mean cross-correlation of r = 0.83, individual mean cross-correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.70). Evoked potential peaks P1, N1 and P2 showed no significant latency difference based on if the eCAEP was recorded on the scalp or using the CI. The eCAEP waveforms recorded via the CI appear to converge in a distinct P1-N1-P2 waveform by as early as 130 sweeps. In conclusion, in this study we show the feasibility of recording the eCAEP directly through the CI system, which could potentially be used to guide CI fitting and track auditory cortex development in response to CI use.
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.