Effect of Cochlear Implantation on Air Conduction and Bone Conduction Elicited Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials—A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Cochlear implantation (CI) is an effective intervention for individuals with severe to profound hearing loss; however, it may impact vestibular function due to its proximity to related anatomical structures. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) assess the function of the saccule and utricle, critical components of the vestibular system. This review examines CI’s impact on air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC) VEMP responses. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using databases such as Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations. Studies reporting on AC and/or BC-VEMP in CI recipients were included. Data extraction focused on VEMP response rates, amplitudes, and latencies pre- and post-CI. Risk of bias/quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Out of 961 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 245 CI-implanted ears. Results indicated that AC-VEMP responses were often reduced or absent post-CI, reflecting the influence of surgical changes in the middle ear mechanics rather than otolith dysfunction. In contrast, BC-VEMP responses were more consistently preserved, suggesting that BC stimuli bypass the middle ear and more accurately delineate otolith function. Variations in VEMP outcomes were noted depending on the surgical approach and individual patient factors. Conclusions: CI impacts vestibular function as measured by VEMP, with AC-VEMP showing greater susceptibility to postoperative changes compared to BC-VEMP. The presence of preserved BC-VEMP alongside absent AC-VEMP underscores the need to differentiate between these measures in assessing vestibular function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".