ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Electrode Contacts in the Functional Hearing Region for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesExamine the incidence of one or more electrode contacts placed within the region of functional acoustic hearing and the potential influence of electrode positioning on speech recognition for pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients.
methodsA retrospective review for pediatric CI recipients of straight electrode arrays with preserved low-frequency hearing (an unaided threshold of ≤ 80 dB HL at 250 Hz) was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Intraoperative X-rays were used to determine the angular insertion depth (AID) of each electrode. Proximity of contacts to the functional acoustic hearing region was calculated using AID and postoperative unaided thresholds. For electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users, the association between proximity values and CNC word recognition in quiet was reviewed at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-activation.
resultsAmong 69 ears, 90% had at least one electrode contact within the functional acoustic hearing region. Proximity values ranged from -131° to 450° (mean: 100°, SD: 120°). For EAS users with speech recognition data (n = 29), proximity values were not significantly associated with post-activation CNC scores (p ≥ 0.212).
conclusionsMost pediatric CI recipients with hearing preservation had at least one electrode contact in the region of functional acoustic hearing. Proximity was not significantly associated with word recognition in quiet for EAS users, though this subgroup was limited in sample size. Further studies in pediatric EAS users are needed to understand the potential relationship with speech recognition in noise and to determine the benefits of individualizing array selection and/or EAS mapping. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.