↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Characterizing Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Residual Low-Frequency Hearing
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christofer W. Bester, Luke Campbell, Adrian Dragovic, Aaron Collins, Stephen J. O'Leary

Abstract

Objective: Lay the groundwork for using electrocochleography (ECochG) as a measure of cochlear health, by characterizing typical patterns of the ECochG response observed across the electrode array in cochlear implant recipients with residual hearing. Methods: ECochG was measured immediately after electrode insertion in 45 cochlear implant recipients with residual hearing. The Cochlear Response Telemetry system was used to record ECochG across the electrode array, in response to 100- or 110-dB SPL pure tones at 0.5-kHz, presented at 14 per second and with alternating polarities. Hair cell activity, as the cochlear microphonic (CM), was estimated by taking the difference (DIF) of the two polarities. Neural activity, as the auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN), was estimated by taking the sum (SUM) of the two polarities. Prior work in humans and animal studies suggested that the expected ECochG pattern in response to a 0.5-kHz pure tone is an apical-peak in CM amplitude and latency. Results: The most prevalent pattern was a peak in the DIF amplitude near the most apical electrode, with a prolongation of latency toward the electrode tip; this was found in 21/39 individuals with successful ECochG recordings. The 21 apical-peak recipients had the best low-frequency hearing. A low amplitude, long-latency DIF response that remained relatively constant across the electrode array was found in 10/39 individuals, in a group with the poorest low- and high-frequency hearing. A third, previously undescribed, pattern occurred in 8/39 participants, with mid-electrode peaks in DIF amplitude. These recipients had the best high-frequency hearing and a progressive prolongation of DIF latency around the mid-electrode peaks consistent with the presence of discrete populations of hair cells. Conclusions: The presence of distinct patterns of the ECochG response with relationships to pre-operative hearing levels supports the notion that ECochG across the electrode array functions as a measure of cochlear health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Engineering 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,459
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,795
of 322,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#170
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.