CI Atlas · References

Full references

Every clinical claim in the atlas is anchored against this typed registry of 42 peer-reviewed references, with DOI or PMID links where available and Oxford CEBM evidence levels where the source stated one. Search by author, year, title, journal, or the atlas note for each entry. Return to the Tools module or jump to the introduction for the atlas roadmap.

2026
Andonie RR, Bester C, Wijewickrema S, et al.Electrocochleography for monitoring hearing preservation during cochlear implantationJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery; 152(2):117–125
doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2025.4044 PMID 41264310andonie2026
Multifeature/automated intraoperative ECochG analysis — direction of travel beyond single-amplitude alarms.
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2025
Garcia C, Carlyon RPAssessing array-type differences in cochlear implant users using the Panoramic ECAP methodEar and Hearing; 46(5):1355–1368
doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000001673 PMID 40400053garcia2025
Array-type comparison of current spread by panoramic ECAP — direction-of-travel.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2022
Bester C, Collins A, Razmovski T, et al.Electrocochleography-triggered intervention successfully preserves residual hearing during cochlear implantation: results of a randomised clinical trialHearing Research; 426:108353
doi:10.1016/j.heares.2021.108353 PMID 34600798Evidence 1bbester2022
RCT: intraoperative ECochG-triggered intervention preserves residual hearing (the ≥30%-drop alarm protocol).
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2021
Garcia C, Goehring T, Cosentino S, et al.The Panoramic ECAP Method: estimating patient-specific patterns of current spread and neural health in cochlear implant usersJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology; 22(5):567–589
doi:10.1007/s10162-021-00795-2 PMID 33891218garcia2021
Panoramic ECAP — patient-specific current spread and neural-health estimation.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2020
Carlson MLCochlear Implantation in AdultsNew England Journal of Medicine; 382(16):1531–1542
doi:10.1056/NEJMra1904407 PMID 32294347carlson2020
Authoritative clinical review of adult cochlear implantation for general context.
Cited in: Overview & rationale
2019
Giardina CK, Brown KD, Adunka OF, et al.Intracochlear electrocochleography: response patterns during cochlear implantation and hearing preservationEar and Hearing; 40(4):833–848
doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000659 PMID 30335669giardina2019
Intracochlear ECochG response patterns and trauma during insertion.
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2017
He S, Teagle HFB, Buchman CAThe electrically evoked compound action potential: from laboratory to clinicFrontiers in Neuroscience; 11:339
doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00339 PMID 28690494he2017
Comprehensive modern review of the ECAP — recording, measures, and clinical use.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry, ECAP threshold & functions
2017
Wolfe J, Gilbert M, Schafer E, et al.Optimizations for the electrically-evoked stapedial reflex threshold measurement in cochlear implant recipientsEar and Hearing; 38(2):255–261
doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000390 PMID 27941405wolfe2017
Practical optimisation of ESRT measurement technique.
Cited in: Electrical stapedius reflex
2017
Harris MS, Riggs WJ, Koka K, et al.Real-time intracochlear electrocochleography obtained directly through a cochlear implantOtology & Neurotology; 38(6):e107–e113
doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001425 PMID 28498269harris2017
Real-time intracochlear ECochG directly through the implant.
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2016
Campbell L, Kaicer A, Sly D, et al.Intraoperative real-time cochlear response telemetry predicts hearing preservation in cochlear implantationOtology & Neurotology; 37(4):332–338
doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000972 PMID 26859542campbell2016
Intraoperative cochlear response telemetry predicting hearing preservation.
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2015
Hang AX, Roush PA, Teagle HFB, et al.Is “no response” on diagnostic auditory brainstem response testing an indication for cochlear implantation in children?Ear and Hearing; 36(1):8–13
doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000072 PMID 25127326hang2015
ABR/eABR in CI candidacy for children with auditory neuropathy / nerve deficiency.
Cited in: Electrically-evoked ABR
2015
Campbell L, Kaicer A, Briggs R, O'Leary SCochlear response telemetry: intracochlear electrocochleography via cochlear implant neural response telemetry pilot study resultsOtology & Neurotology; 36(3):399–405
doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000678 PMID 25473960campbell2015
Recording ECochG through the implant for intraoperative insertion monitoring.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Intraoperative ECochG
2015
Dalbert A, Sim JH, Gerig R, et al.Correlation of electrophysiological properties and hearing preservation in cochlear implant patientsOtology & Neurotology; 36(7):1172–1180
doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000768 PMID 25839980dalbert2015
Intracochlear ECochG and hearing-preservation outcomes.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Intraoperative ECochG
2014
Wolfe J, Schafer ECProgramming Cochlear ImplantsPlural Publishing, San Diego, CA; 2nd edition (Core Clinical Concepts in Audiology)
ISBN 9781597565523wolfe2015
Reference text linking objective measures to the programming workflow.
Cited in: Impedance & electrode interface, Objective measures → the MAP
2014
Fitzpatrick DC, Campbell AP, Choudhury B, et al.Round window electrocochleography just before cochlear implantation: relationship to word recognition outcomes in adultsOtology & Neurotology; 35(1):64–71
doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000219 PMID 24317211fitzpatrick2014
Round-window ECochG before implantation and word-recognition outcomes.
Cited in: Intraoperative ECochG
2013
Hughes MLObjective Measures in Cochlear ImplantsPlural Publishing, San Diego, CA; 1st edition (Core Clinical Concepts in Audiology)
ISBN 9781597564359hughes2013
The standard textbook on CI objective measures; the spine of this atlas.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Impedance & electrode interface, Manufacturer systems compared
2011
Tang Q, Benitez R, Zeng FGSpatial channel interactions in cochlear implantsJournal of Neural Engineering; 8(4):046029
doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046029 PMID 21750370tang2011
Quantifies spatial channel interaction relevant to spread of excitation.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2010
Botros A, Psarros CNeural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fittingEar and Hearing; 31(3):367–379
doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c9fd86 PMID 20124902botros2010
Profile-based use of ECAP thresholds for MAP estimation.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, ECAP threshold & functions, Objective measures → the MAP
2009
Saoji AA, Litvak LM, Hughes MLExcitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipientsEar and Hearing; 30(5):559–567
doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ab2b6f PMID 19617837saoji2009
Dual-electrode excitation patterns and channel interaction.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2008
Hughes ML, Stille LJPsychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implantsEar and Hearing; 29(3):435–452
doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816a0d3d PMID 18344869hughes2008
Channel interaction by ECAP and behavioural masking vs speech outcomes.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2007
van Dijk B, Botros AM, Battmer RD, et al.Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implantsEar and Hearing; 28(4):558–570
doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc1d1 PMID 17609616vandijk2007
Automated ECAP threshold measurement (AutoNRT).
Cited in: ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry, Manufacturer systems compared
2006
Abbas PJ, Brown CJ; in Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr (eds)Electrically evoked auditory potentials: clinical applications (in Cochlear Implants, 2nd ed)Thieme Medical Publishers, New York; 2nd edition
ISBN 9781588904133abbas2004
Overview of the evoked-potential toolbox in cochlear implantation.
2006
Sharma A, Dorman MFCentral auditory development in children with cochlear implants: clinical implicationsAdvances in Otorhinolaryngology; 64:66–88
doi:10.1159/000094646 PMID 16891837sharma2006
Clinical use of the P1 cortical response in implanted children.
Cited in: Electrical cortical responses
2005
Cafarelli Dees D, Dillier N, Lai WK, et al.Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant systemAudiology & Neuro-Otology; 10(2):105–116
doi:10.1159/000083366 PMID 15650302cafarelli2005
Multicentre normative ECAP/NRT dataset.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2005
Sharma A, Dorman MF, Kral AThe influence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantsHearing Research; 203(1-2):134–143
doi:10.1016/j.heares.2004.12.010 PMID 15855038sharma2005
Sensitive-period evidence from P1 across unilateral/bilateral implantation.
Cited in: Electrical cortical responses
2005
Balkany TJ, Hodges AV, Buchman CA, et al.Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statementOtology & Neurotology; 26(4):815–818
doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000178150.44505.52 PMID 16015190balkany2005
Consensus definitions for CI device soft failure; objective-measure role in workup.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Troubleshooting & special cases
2004
Vanpoucke FJ, Zarowski AJ, Peeters SAIdentification of the impedance model of an implanted cochlear prosthesis from intracochlear potential measurementsIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering; 51(12):2174–2183
doi:10.1109/TBME.2004.836518 PMID 15605865vanpoucke2004
Transimpedance/voltage-telemetry modelling of the electrode array.
Cited in: Impedance & electrode interface
2004
Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RVToward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in childrenEar and Hearing; 25(5):447–463
doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000146178.84065.B3 PMID 15599192gordon2004
eABR and ECAP integrated into paediatric level-setting.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Electrically-evoked ABR, Objective measures → the MAP, Troubleshooting & special cases
2003
Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, et al.Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward maskingHearing Research; 179(1-2):72–87
doi:10.1016/s0378-5955(03)00096-0 PMID 12742240cohen2003
Spread-of-excitation measurement via ECAP and its psychophysical correlate.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
2003
Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RVActivity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implantsEar and Hearing; 24(6):485–500
doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000100203.65990.D4 PMID 14663348gordon2003
eABR maturation and brainstem plasticity in implanted children.
Cited in: Electrically-evoked ABR
2002
Dillier N, Lai WK, Almqvist B, et al.Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry systemThe Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology; 111(5 Pt 1):407–414
doi:10.1177/000348940211100505 PMID 12018325dillier2002
Methodological reference for ECAP/NRT acquisition and artifact handling.
Cited in: ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry
2002
Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JESpeech perception in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholdsAudiology & Neuro-Otology; 7(6):335–347
doi:10.1159/000066154 PMID 12401965smoorenburg2002
ECAP-threshold-based fitting and resulting speech perception.
Cited in: Objective measures → the MAP
2002
Firszt JB, Chambers RD, Kraus NNeurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measuresEar and Hearing; 23(6):516–531
doi:10.1097/00003446-200212000-00003 PMID 12476089firszt2002
Electrically-evoked potentials including eABR vs perception.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Electrically-evoked ABR
2002
Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJA sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantationEar and Hearing; 23(6):532–539
doi:10.1097/00003446-200212000-00004 PMID 12476090sharma2002
P1 cortical latency as a biomarker of central auditory maturation.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Electrical cortical responses
2000
Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Brown CJAn improved method of reducing stimulus artifact in the electrically evoked whole-nerve potentialEar and Hearing; 21(4):280–290
doi:10.1097/00003446-200008000-00003 PMID 10981604miller2000
Forward-masking subtraction for ECAP artifact rejection.
Cited in: ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry
2000
Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, et al.Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from childrenEar and Hearing; 21(2):164–174
doi:10.1097/00003446-200004000-00010 PMID 10777023hughes2000
Relationship between ECAP threshold and behavioural MAP levels in children.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions, Objective measures → the MAP
2000
Stephan K, Welzl-Müller KPost-operative stapedius reflex tests with simultaneous loudness scaling in patients supplied with cochlear implantsAudiology; 39(1):13–18
doi:10.3109/00206090009073049 PMID 10749066stephan2000
ESRT and loudness scaling relationship in CI recipients.
Cited in: Electrical stapedius reflex
1999
Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al.Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potentialEar and Hearing; 20(1):45–59
doi:10.1097/00003446-199902000-00005 PMID 10037065abbas1999
Introduces Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) on the Nucleus device.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry, ECAP threshold & functions, Manufacturer systems compared
1997
Hodges AV, Balkany TJ, Ruth RA, et al.Electrical middle ear muscle reflex: use in cochlear implant programmingOtolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery; 117(3 Pt 1):255–261
doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(97)70183-9 PMID 9334774hodges1997
ESRT as an objective anchor for comfortable-level (C/M) programming.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, Electrical stapedius reflex, Objective measures → the MAP
1996
Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Borland J, Bertschy MRElectrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responsesJournal of Speech and Hearing Research; 39(3):453–467
doi:10.1044/jshr.3903.453 PMID 8783126brown1996
ECAP vs psychophysical responses across electrode configurations.
Cited in: ECAP threshold & functions
1994
Spivak LG, Chute PMThe relationship between electrical acoustic reflex thresholds and behavioral comfort levels in children and adult cochlear implant patientsEar and Hearing; 15(2):184–192
doi:10.1097/00003446-199404000-00008 PMID 8020651spivak1994
ESRT vs behavioural comfort levels across ages.
Cited in: Electrical stapedius reflex
1990
Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BElectrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant usersThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 88(3):1385–1391
doi:10.1121/1.399716 PMID 2229673brown1990
Early demonstration of ECAP recording in CI users — the technique's origin.
Cited in: Overview & rationale, ECAP / Neural Response Telemetry