Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Hear Res. 2009 Aug 22;257(1-2):93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.08.006

Table 1.

Cortical response summary

Group Acoustic Stimulation Electric Stimulation
Apical Basal
Threshold ±
SEM (dB)
Latency ±
SEM (ms)
“E Points”
(%)
Threshold
± SEM (dB
re EABR)
Latency ±
SEM (ms)
Threshold ± SEM
(dB re EABR)
Latency ±
SEM (ms)
DUS 73.5 ± 1.5 17.4 ± 0.4 13.6 4.8 ± 0.6 12.8 ± 0.4 1.0 ± 0.4 # 12.6 ± 0.4
DCS 76.2 ± 1.1 18.2 ± 0.4 30.6** 6.1 ± 0.5* 12.1 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.4 #* 11.6 ± 0.5
#

Significant difference from corresponding apical group (T-test; P < 0.05)

*

Significant difference from corresponding DUS group (T-test; P < 0.05)

**

Significant difference from corresponding DUS group (Chi-squared test; P < 0.05)

Significant difference in latency between groups (ANOVA; P <0.05), and no significant interaction

"E Points": recording sites on the gyrus that are responsive to ICES but not acoustic stimulation