ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Distinct cortical encoding of acoustic and electrical cochlear stimulation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants are neuroprosthetic devices that restore hearing and speech comprehension to profoundly deaf humans, and represent an exemplar application of biomedical engineering and research to clinical conditions. However, the utility of these devices in many subjects is limited, largely due to lack of information about how neural circuits respond to implant stimulation. Recently we showed that deafened rats can use cochlear implants to recognize sounds, and that this training refined the responses of single neurons in the primary auditory cortex. Here we asked how local populations of cortical neurons represent acute implant stimuli, using electrode arrays we developed for cortical surface recordings for micro-electrocorticography (μECoG), a form of intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG). We found that there was a limited tonotopic organization across recording sites, relative to a clearer tonotopic spatial representation in normal-hearing rats. Single-trial iEEG responses to acoustic inputs were more reliable than responses to cochlear implant stimulation, although stimulus identity could be successfully decoded in both cases. However, the spatio-temporal response profiles to acoustic vs cochlear implant stimulation were substantially different. Decoders trained on acoustic responses showed essentially zero information transfer when tested on electrical stimulation responses in the same animals after deafening and cochlear implant stimulation. Thus while acute cochlear implant stimulation might activate the auditory cortex in a cochleotopic manner, the dynamics of network activity are quite distinct, suggesting that pitch percepts from acoustic and electrical stimulation are fundamentally different.
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.