ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2026
The Interphase Gap Effect in Cochlear Implant Users: Biological Basis, Parameter Selection, Analytical Methods, and Quantitative Scales.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrically evoked compound action potentials in adult and pediatric cochlear implant users: I. Cochlear nerve responsiveness and electrode-neuron interface index.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Electrically evoked compound action potentials in adult and pediatric cochlear implant users: II. Assessing cochlear nerve health status with the interphase gap effect and the phase locking value.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
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
purposeThis study aimed (1) to determine the biological basis of the interphase gap (IPG) effect and (2) to identify the most informative parameters, analytical methods, and quantitative scales for evaluating the IPG effect in human cochlear implant (CI) users.
methodsThe IPG effect was quantified using multiple parameters, analytical methods, and quantitative scales (three combinations using linear or logarithmic scales for the input and output variables) across three pediatric CI groups with differing cochlear nerve (CN) anatomy: children with cochlear nerve deficiency (CND), GJB2 mutations, and idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). All participants in the GJB2 and idiopathic SNHL groups had normal-sized CNs (NSCNs) in the test ear. Neural synchrony, a property depending on neural health, was assessed using phase locking value (PLV) and compared between children with CND and those with GJB2 mutations.
resultsThe PLV did not differ significantly between the CND and GJB2 groups, nor did it correlate with the IPG effect in GJB2 cases, regardless of parameter, analytical method, or quantitative scale. In contrast, consistent group differences in IPG effects on stimulation level offset and maximum slope of the eCAP input/output function were observed across all analytical methods and quantitative scales. The sensitivity of other eCAP measures-threshold, maximum amplitude, and overall linear slope-to group differences varied by quantitative scale.
conclusionsThe IPG effect primarily reflects the number of active CN fibers rather than their health. Stimulation level offset and the IPG effect on maximum slope are robust indicators of CN fiber counts in CI users and are unaffected by the choice of quantitative scale.
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.