ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2026
Evaluating the N1-P2 Interpeak Latency of the eCAP and Its Intertrial Variability as Potential Indicators of Neural Synchrony in the Auditory Nerve of Cochlear Implant Users.
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. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated interpeak latency (IPL) and its intertrial variability (IPLVAR) of the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) as potential alternatives to the phase-locking value (PLV) for quantifying auditory nerve (AN) synchrony in cochlear implant (CI) users.
designThe IPL and IPLVAR were assessed in 28 postlingually deafened adults, 37 children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD), 43 children with cochlear nerve deficiency, and 38 children with typical sensorineural hearing loss. All participant groups include both male and female participants. Their associations with temporal resolution and speech perception outcomes were evaluated in children with ANSD and/or adult CI users. Frequency analysis was conducted to understand the impacts of eCAP recording noise on the IPL, IPLVAR, and PLV. Simulations of intertrial jitter in the eCAP were performed to quantify how the IPL, IPLVAR, and PLV metrics varied with increased temporal jitter and its interaction with recording noise level and sampling rate.
resultseCAP traces recorded in all patient groups showed a multipoint peak issue affecting the accuracy of IPL and IPLVAR assessments. Temporal resolution and speech perception outcomes were significantly correlated with IPLVAR but not with IPL metrics. The PLV was impacted less by recording noise than either the IPL or the IPLVAR. Simulation results revealed that the IPL was less sensitive to the amount of intertrial jitter in the eCAP than were the IPLVAR and the PLV.
conclusionsThe IPL is not a reliable indicator of AN synchrony. The IPLVAR is indicative of neural synchrony in the AN; however, it is more strongly affected by high levels of eCAP recording noise than the PLV. The PLV is therefore the preferred measure for quantifying neural synchrony in the AN in CI users.
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.