MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559234174 · doi:10.1080/14670100.2016.1240427

Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation

2016· article· en· W2559234174 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Van de Heyning, Santiago L. Arauz, Marcus D. Atlas, Wolf‐Dieter Baumgartner, Marco Caversaccio, Ronel Chester-Browne, Patricia Estienne, Javiér Gavilán, Benoît Godey, Wolfgang Gstöttner, Demin Han, Rudolph Hagen, Martin Kompis, Vlad Kuzovkov, Luis Lassaletta, Franc Lefevre, Yongxin Li, Joachim Müller, Lorne Parnes, Andrea Kleine Punte, Christopher Raine, Gunesh P. Rajan, Adriana Rivas, José Antonio Rivas, Nicola Royle, Georg Sprinzl, Kurt Stephan, Adam Walkowiak, Yu. К. Yanov, Kim Zimmermann, Patrick Zorowka, Henryk Skarżyńśki

Bibliographic record

VenueCochlear Implants International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulationCochleaAction (physics)Cochlear implantationCochlear implantCompound muscle action potentialNeuroscienceAudiologyChemistryMedicineElectrophysiologyPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the many parameters that can affect cochlear implant (CI) users’ performance is the site of presentation of electrical stimulation, from the CI, to the auditory nerve. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements are commonly used to verify nerve function by stimulating one electrode contact in the cochlea and recording the resulting action potentials on the other contacts of the electrode array.The present study aimed to determine if the ECAP amplitude differs between the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea, if double peak potentials were more likely in the apex than the basal region of the cochlea, and if there were differences in the ECAP threshold and recovery function across the cochlea.ECAP measurements were performed in the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea at fixed sites of stimulation with varying recording electrodes. One hundred and forty one adult subjects with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss fitted with a Standard or FLEXSOFT electrode were included in this study. ECAP responses were captured using MAESTRO System Software (MED-EL). The ECAP amplitude, threshold, and slope were determined using amplitude growth sequences. The 50% recovery rate was assessed using independent single sequences that have two stimulation pulses (a masker and a probe pulse) separated by a variable inter-pulse interval. For all recordings, ECAP peaks were annotated semi-automatically.ECAP amplitudes were greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. ECAP slopes were steeper in the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea and ECAP thresholds were lower in the middle region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. The incidence of double peaks was greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea.This data indicates that the site and intensity of cochlear stimulation affect ECAP properties.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochlear Implants InternationalSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207