ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2025
Model-Based Inference of Electrode Distance and Neuronal Density from Measured Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Abstract
purposeCochlear implants (CI) are a highly successful neural prosthesis that can restore hearing in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. However, the extent of hearing restoration varies widely. Two major factors likely contribute to poor performance: (1) the distances between electrodes and surviving spiral ganglion neurons and (2) the density of those neurons. Reprogramming the CI at a poor electrode-neuron interface, using focused tripolar stimulation or remapping the electrodes, would benefit from understanding the cause of the poor interface.
methodsWe used a cochlear model with simplified geometry and neuronal composition to investigate how the interface affects stimulation thresholds. We then inverted the model to infer electrode distance and neuronal density from monopolar and tripolar threshold values obtained behaviorally. We validated this inverted model for known scenarios of electrode distance and neuronal density. Finally, we assessed the model using data from 18 CI users whose electrode distances were measured from CT imaging.
resultsThe inverted model accurately inferred electrode distance and neuronal density for known scenarios. It also reliably reproduced behavioral monopolar and tripolar threshold profiles for CI users, with mean prediction errors within 1 dB for 17/18 subjects. Fits of electrode distance were more variable; accuracy depended on the assumed value of temporal bone resistivity. Twelve subjects had minimum distance error (0.31 mm) using low resistivity (70 Ω-cm) while the others had better fits (0.30 mm) with higher resistivity (250 Ω-cm).
conclusionThis inverted model shows promise as a simple, practical tool to better assess and understand the electrode-neuron interface.
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.