The 100 Most-Cited Manuscripts in Hearing Implants: A Bibliometrics Analysis

Overview

Journal Cureus

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2023 Feb 16

PMID 36793822

Authors

Tsz Ki Ko

Denise Jia Yun Tan

Timothy Shun Man Chu

Jeremy Chan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to characterise the most frequently cited articles on the topic of hearing implants. A systematic search was carried out using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection database. Eligibility criteria restricted the results to primary studies and reviews published from 1970 to 2022 in English dealing primarily with hearing implants. Data including the authors, year of publication, journal, country of origin, number of citations and average number of citations per year were extracted, as well as the impact factors and five-year impact factor of journals publishing the articles. The top 100 papers were published across 23 journals and were cited 23,139 times. The most-cited and influential article describes the first use of the continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) strategy utilised in all modern cochlear implants. More than half of the studies on the list were produced by authors from the United States, and the Ear and Hearing journal had both the greatest number of articles and the greatest number of total citations. To conclude, this research serves as a guide to the most influential articles on the topic of hearing implants, although bibliometric analyses mainly focus on citations. The most-cited article was an influential description of CIS.

References

Brown C, Hughes M, Luk B, Abbas P, Wolaver A, Gervais J . The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear. 2000; 21(2):151-63. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200004000-00009. View

Ramsden R . History of cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2014; 14 Suppl 4:S3-5. DOI: 10.1179/1467010013Z.000000000140. View

Pisoni D, Kronenberger W, Harris M, Moberly A . Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 3(4):240-254. PMC: 5956139. DOI: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.010. View

Dorman M, Gifford R, Spahr A, McKarns S . The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurootol. 2007; 13(2):105-12. PMC: 3559130. DOI: 10.1159/000111782. View

Townshend B, Cotter N, Van Compernolle D, White R . Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1987; 82(1):106-15. DOI: 10.1121/1.395554. View

Geers A . Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2003; 24(1 Suppl):59S-68S. DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000051690.43989.5D. View

Cohen N, Hoffman R . Complications of cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991; 100(9 Pt 1):708-11. DOI: 10.1177/000348949110000903. View

Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Beck R, Schild C, Kroeger S . Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol. 2010; 32(1):39-47. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181fcf271. View

Fayad J, Linthicum Jr F . Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope. 2006; 116(8):1310-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000227176.09500.28. View

10.

Hinderink J, Krabbe P, Van Den Broek P . Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 123(6):756-65. DOI: 10.1067/mhn.2000.108203. View

11.

Henry B, Turner C, Behrens A . Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 118(2):1111-21. DOI: 10.1121/1.1944567. View

12.

Martin B, Tremblay K, Korczak P . Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear. 2008; 29(3):285-313. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181662c0e. View

13.

Kong Y, Stickney G, Zeng F . Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(3 Pt 1):1351-61. DOI: 10.1121/1.1857526. View

14.

Xu L, Thompson C, Pfingst B . Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(5):3255-67. PMC: 1414641. DOI: 10.1121/1.1886405. View

15.

Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham B, Leake P . Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007; 8(2):220-33. PMC: 2394499. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9. View

16.

Gifford R, Shallop J, Peterson A . Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol. 2008; 13(3):193-205. DOI: 10.1159/000113510. View

17.

Richardson R, Wise A, Thompson B, Flynn B, Atkinson P, Fretwell N . Polypyrrole-coated electrodes for the delivery of charge and neurotrophins to cochlear neurons. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(13):2614-24. PMC: 3563695. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.015. View

18.

Rubinstein J, Wilson B, Finley C, Abbas P . Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res. 1999; 127(1-2):108-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(98)00185-3. View

19.

Hainarosie M, Zainea V, Hainarosie R . The evolution of cochlear implant technology and its clinical relevance. J Med Life. 2015; 7 Spec No. 2:1-4. PMC: 4391344. View

20.

Shepherd R, Hatsushika S, Clark G . Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res. 1993; 66(1):108-20. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(93)90265-3. View