↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of Using Electrocochleography for Objective Estimation of Electro-Acoustic Interactions in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Residual Hearing

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Feasibility of Using Electrocochleography for Objective Estimation of Electro-Acoustic Interactions in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Residual Hearing
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00337
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanthaiah Koka, Leonid M. Litvak

Abstract

Although cochlear implants (CI) traditionally have been used to treat individuals with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss, a recent trend is to implant individuals with residual low-frequency hearing. Patients who retain some residual acoustic hearing after surgery often can benefit from electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) technologies, which combine conventional acoustic amplification with electrical stimulation. However, interactions between acoustic and electrical stimulation may affect outcomes adversely and are time-consuming and difficult to assess behaviorally. This study demonstrated the feasibility of using the Advanced Bionics HiRes90K Advantage implant electronics and HiFocus Mid Scala/1j electrode to measure electrocochleography (ECochG) responses in the presence of electrical stimulation to provide an objective estimate of peripheral physiologic EAS interactions. In general, electrical stimulation reduced ECochG response amplitudes to acoustic stimulation. The degree of peripheral EAS interaction varied as a function of acoustic pure tone frequency and the intra-cochlear location of the electrically stimulated electrode. Further development of this technique may serve to guide and optimize clinical EAS system fittings in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Engineering 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 26%
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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,138
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,704
of 331,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#177
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 331,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.