ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2025
Comparing Patient-Specific Variations in Intra-Cochlear Neural Health Estimated Using Psychophysical Thresholds and Panoramic Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials (PECAPs).
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Review
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- A comparison of electrophysiological measures for characterizing the cochlear-implant electrode-neuron interface.JASA express letters · 2025Article
- An Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Marker for Local Spiral Ganglion Neuron Degeneration: The Failure Index.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Failure Index as Marker of the Neural Health Profile in MED-EL CI Users: A Retrospective Analysis.Trends in hearingArticle
- Assessing Array-Type Differences in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Panoramic ECAP Method.Ear and hearingArticle
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
purposeVariations in neural survival along the cochlear implant electrode array leads to off-place listening, resulting in poorer speech understanding outcomes for recipients. Therefore, it is important to develop and compare clinically viable tests to identify these patient-specific intra-cochlear neural differences.
methodsNineteen experienced cochlear implant recipients (9 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. We estimated the neural health along the electrode array for a group of experienced adult implant recipients using two methods: the difference between psychophysical detection thresholds in bipolar vs. monopolar mode and the panoramic electrically evoked compound action potential method (PECAP). We hypothesised that: neural health estimated using both methods at single electrodes will be correlated at the participant level and the group level; and participants with larger variations in neural health along the electrode array will have poorer speech outcomes.
resultsAt the individual level, the two neural measures correlated significantly across electrodes (p < 0.05) for 5 out of 15 participants. At the group level, we observed a weak but significant across-electrode correlation (R
conclusionOur evidence suggests that both methods likely quantify a shared underlying neural basis, hypothesised to be the neural health along the cochlear implant array. The differences between the two measures may be attributed to differences in stimulus rate or loudness used to elicit responses and/or the influence of factors arising more centrally than the auditory nerve.
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.