ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026
Estimating Performance Using Tonotopic Measurements of Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Comparison of Lateral Wall and Perimodiolar Arrays.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) for estimating cochlear implant (CI) performance for lateral wall and perimodiolar electrode arrays. STUDY
designProspective cohort study.
settingTertiary referral center.
methodsFrom December 2021 to June 2024, ECochG was measured intraoperatively using the Active Insertion Monitoring (AIM) system by Advanced Bionics. After insertion, multifrequency tone bursts were delivered via a sound tube from 250 Hz to 2 kHz at 95 to 105 dB HL with recordings at each internal electrode. Using spectral analysis, the maximal amplitude (MA) response electrode was identified by frequency and summed into a single value of total response (MA-ECochG-TR). Postoperative CI performance was routinely monitored.
resultsOf 57 participants with ECochG recordings, 43 completed 6-month testing. Of these, 23 were perimodiolar (Mid-Scala [MS]), and 20 were lateral wall (SlimJ [SJ]). MA-ECochG-TR had a moderately strong positive correlation to 6-month consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores for MS cases (r = 0.73, 95% CI [0.46-0.88], P < .001), but showed no significant correlation for SJ cases (r = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41 to 0.47], P = .87). For the 13 SJ recipients without electroacoustic stimulation (EAS), there was a moderate, non-significant positive correlation between MA-ECochG-TR and 6-month CNC (r = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.80], P = .13).
conclusionMA-ECochG-TR independently estimates performance for perimodiolar arrays. Intracochlear ECochG is less predictive for lateral wall arrays; this may be due to confounding from EAS (though this was not statistically significant) or from signal degradation with a larger electrode-modiolar distance.
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.