ArticleScientific reports2024
Bone conduction stimulation efficiency at coupling locations closer to the cochlea.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bone conduction implants enable patients to hear via vibrations transmitted to the skull. The main constraint of current bone conduction implants is their maximum output force level. Stimulating closer to the cochlea is hypothesized to increase efficiency and improve force transfer, addressing this limitation. This study evaluated stimulation at four positions in human cadaveric specimens: the cochlear promontory, the posterior wall of the outer ear canal, the lateral semi-circular canal, and the standard Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (Baha) location. To assess potential hearing sensation, three objective measures were simultaneously recorded. For intracochlear pressure and promontory velocity, stimulating at the lateral semi-circular canal and promontory results in the highest response, with a gain of up to 20 dB. Ear canal pressure shows less conclusive results, with significant differences at only a few frequencies. These findings suggest that stimulation closer to the cochlea offers higher efficiency, which could benefit patients needing higher output force levels than currently available or those eligible for electro-vibrational stimulation, e.g. a cochlear implant combined with a bone conduction device.
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.