Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39779632›Full record

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).

Tommy Peng, Charlotte Garcia, Mica Haneman, Maureen J Shader, Robert P Carlyon, Colette M McKay

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  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

6 authors.

Tommy PengThe Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia. TPeng@bionicsinstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9407-710X
Charlotte GarciaMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge Hearing Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK.
Mica HanemanThe Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.
Maureen J ShaderThe Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.
Robert P CarlyonMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge Hearing Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK.
Colette M McKayThe Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.

Funding

Garnett Passe and Rodney Williams Memorial Foundation Conjoint GrantGarnett Passe and Rodney Williams Memorial Foundation Junior FellowshipWellcome TrustWellcome Trust RG91976
6 · The paper itself

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

Action PotentialsAuditory ThresholdCochleaCochlear ImplantsEvoked Potentials, AuditoryAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychophysicsCochlear implantElectrically evoked compound action potentialIntra-cochlearNeural healthSpiral ganglion cell

Identifiers

PMID39779632
PMCPMC11861486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.