ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Using cortical auditory-evoked potential responses to verify the objective benefit of aural rehabilitation in adult cochlear implant users.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
Introduction: Cortical auditory-evoked potential (CAEP) responses are used clinically to assess auditory processing and support cochlear implant (CI) mapping procedures post-implantation. This study aims to examine CAEP responses as an objective measure of neurophysiological changes following a structured Aural Rehabilitation Program (ARP) in long-term adult CI users, with poor baseline speech perception performance. Advancing our understanding of the mechanisms underlying improved post-implantation outcomes in poor performing CI users may inform the development of targeted interventions and refinement of evidence-based rehabilitation strategies. Methods: Adult unilateral CI users with post-lingual deafness were recruited for an intensive clinician-directed ARP incorporating structured active listening exercises. The ARP consisted of weekly 1-h face-to-face sessions over 10 weeks with repeated assessments at baseline (T0) and 10-week intervals (T10, T20, T30). Participants were allocated to immediate (Group 1), 10-week delay (Group 2), or 20-week delay (Group 3) ARP groups, while a control group completed assessments without intensive ARP. Speech perception in quiet [CNC phoneme and word scores (%)] and electrically-evoked CAEP (eCAEP) response [P1-N1-P2 peak latencies (ms) and amplitudes (μV)] measures were collected at each time point for all groups. The repeated measures design incorporated staggered pre- and post-ARP periods for Groups 1-3 (T0-T10, T10-T20, and T20-T30, respectively). CNC and eCAEP measures were analyzed pre- and post-ARP intervention and across assessment intervals (T0-T30) to evaluate rehabilitation effects and account for natural variability and potential ongoing adaptation in auditory performance over time, independent of ARP-related changes. Results: No significant changes were observed in eCAEP response latencies or amplitudes from pre- to post-rehabilitation. However, the ARP intervention group demonstrated significantly higher CNC phoneme and word recognition scores compared to the control group in both implant-alone and binaural listening conditions post-rehabilitation. Discussion: No measurable neurophysiological changes were observed in eCAEP responses from pre- to post-rehabilitation. However, the ARP intervention group demonstrated behavioral improvements, reflected in marginal increases in speech perception scores at both phoneme and word recognition levels, which were not observed in the control group. These findings highlight the clinical value of structured aural rehabilitation in supporting improved outcomes for long-term adult CI users with poor baseline performance.
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.