ArticleCoDAS2026
Electrode deactivation in cochlear implant users: impact on speech perception and objective measures.
Article in CoDAS, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify whether electrode deactivation in cochlear implant users results in modifications in silent and noisy speech recognition, as well as to identify whether changes occur in electrical and physiological measurements.
methodsRetrospective study of medical records of 46 cochlear implant users, from three manufacturers, who underwent deactivation of at least one electrode. Pre- and post-deactivation data relating to programming records, free-field audiometry (500, 1,000, 2,000 and 4,000 Hz) and sentence recognition tests recorded in silence at 60 dB and with competing noise at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Objective measurements included impedance telemetry, electrically elicited stapedial reflex (eSRT) and electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAP). Statistical analyses used the Wilcoxon test, Spearman correlation, and chi-square test, with a significance level of 5%.
resultsStatistically significant correlations were observed in the thresholds at 1,000 and 4,000 Hz in the 46 users studied, but without functional impact on overall averages or speech perception between pre- and post-deactivation assessments. Objective measures showed significant changes, including an increase in electrodes with altered impedance (2.2% to 13%; p = 0.009) and a reduction in the presence of ECAP responses (53.8% to 28%). The eSRT had a limited number of measurements, restricting the analysis.
conclusionElectrode deactivation, when clinically indicated, did not compromise functional auditory performance, although it was accompanied by electrical and physiological changes. These findings reinforce the need for comprehensive monitoring and individualized management.
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.