Cited by 12Hearing Loss and RehabilitationEar Surgery and Otitis MediaHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

Automated detection of electrically evoked stapedius reflexes (eSR) during cochlear implantation.

Open access
Weiss, Nora M., Óvári, Attila, Oberhoffner, Tobias, Demaret, Laurent, Bicer, Atabek, Schraven, Sebastian, Ehrt, Karsten, Dahl, Rüdiger +2 more·2021·European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In cochlear implantation, objective fitting methods are needed to optimize audiological results in small children or patients with poor compliance. Intraoperatively measured electrically evoked stapedius reflexes (eSR) can be used as a marker for the patient's discomfort level. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an automated detection method for eSR and to compare it to the detection rate of the surgeon and independent observers. METHODS: Cochlear implantation using a fully digital surgical microscope was performed. Movements of the stapedius tendon were recorded and analyzed by means of computer vision technique. Differences in eSR elicited by stimulating electrodes at different cochlear locations (basal, middle and apical) were analyzed. The eSR detection rate of the image processing algorithm was compared to the surgeon's detection rate and to those of two less experienced observers. RESULTS: A total of 387 electrically impulses were applied. The stimulation of middle turn electrodes showed significantly higher detection rates (50.4%) compared to the basal (40.0%; p = 0.001) and apical (43.6%; p = 0.03) turn. The software identified significantly more of the applied stimuli (58.4%) compared to the surgeon (46.3%; p = 0.0007), the intermediate observer (37.7%; p < 0.0001) and the unexperienced observer (41.3%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The feasibility of an automated intraoperative software-based detection of eSR is demonstrated. By improving the eSR detection methods and their clinical applicability, their utility in objective cochlear implant fitting may be substantially increased.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00405-020-06226-x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weiss, N. M., Óvári, A., Oberhoffner, T., Demaret, L., Bicer, A., Schraven, S., Ehrt, K., Dahl, R., Schneider, A., & Mlynski, R.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
  • Asklepios Klinik St. Georg (DE)
  • Arri (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Mlynski, Robert
Venue
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Published
2020-08-03
Volume
278
Issue
6
Pages
1773-1779
ISSN
  • 0937-4477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1434-4726
OpenAlex
W3047266736
Cited by
12
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
cochlear implantation, intraoperative monitoring, computer vision, patient discomfort
MeSH terms
Auditory Threshold, Child, Cochlear Implants, Electric Stimulation, Humans, Reflex, Acoustic, Stapedius, Cochlear Implantation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review