Cochlear implant place psychophysics: 2 comparison of forward masking and pitch estimation data

Audiology and Neuro-Otology

Volumn 1, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 278-292

  Cohen, Lawrence T ^a   Busby, Peter A ^a   Clark, Graeme M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Forward masking; Pitch; Stimulation bipolar monopolar

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; SCALA TYMPANI; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0030224883     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000259211     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Lamorc PJJ, Verweij C, Brocaar MP: Investigations of the residual hearing capacity of severely hearing-impaired and profoundly deaf subjects. Audiology 1985,24:343-361.
2. Matsushima JL, Shepherd RK, Sel-don HL, Xu S, Clark GM: Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in deaf kittens: Effects on cochlear nucleus morphology. Hear Res 1991: 56:133-142.
3. Otte J. Schuknccht HF. Kerr AG: Ganglion cell populations in normal and pathological human cochleae: Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 1978:88:1231-1246.
4. Nadol JB. Young Y. Glynn RJ: Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: Implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Larvngol 1989:98:411-416.
5. Leake PA, Hradek GT, Rebscher SJ, Snyder RL: Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation induces selective survival of spiral ganglion neurons in neonatally deafened cats. Hear Res 1991:54:251-271.
6. Millar JB. Tong YC. Blarney PJ. Clark GM. Dowell RC. Scligman PM: Speech processing for electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. 1EE Conf Pubi 1986:258:178-183.
7. Dowell RC. Mecklenburg DJ. Clark GM: Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986:112:1054-1059.
8. Dorman MF. Hannlcy MT. Dan-kowski K. Smith L. McCandless G: Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Syntbion multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1989:10: 44-49.
9. Parkin JL. Stewart BE. Dankowski K. Haas U: Prognosticating speech performance in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989:101:314-319.
10. Shea JJ, Domico EH, Orchik DJ: Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Laryngoscope 1990:100:223-226.
11. Dorman MF. Dankowski K, McCandless G, Parkin JL. Smith L: Longitudinal changes in word recognition by patients who use the Iner-aid cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1990;11:455-459.
12. Kilcny PR, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kemink JL, Schmaltz SP: Effects of preoperativc electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Larvngol 1991;100:563-568.
13. Blarney PJ. Pvman BC, Gordon M. Clark GM. Brown AM, Dowell RC. Hollow RD: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlin-guistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Larvngol 1992:101:342-348.
14. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Abbas PJ, Knutson JF, Tyler RS: Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993:102:909-916.
15. Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM: Prognostic value of round window' psychophysical measurements with adult cochlear implant candidates: in Hochmair 1J. Hochmair ES (eds): Advances in Cochlear Implants. Vienna. Mainz, 1994,79-81.
16. van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Mean LHM, Brokx JPL, van den Brock P, Smoorenburg GF: Predictive factors for success with a cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; suppl 166:196-198.
17. Sunimerfield AQ. Marshall DH: Preoperativc predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: Performance and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;suppl 166:105-108.
18. Battmcr R-D. Gupta SP. Allum-Mecklenburg DJ. Lcnarz T: Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995: suppl 166:185-187.
19. Shipp DB. Ncdzclski SM: Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: A prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhino Laryngol 1995: suppl 166:194-196.
20. Fayad J. Linthicum FH Jr. Otto SR. Galey FR. House WF: Cochlear implants: Histopathologic Findings related to performance in 16 human temporal bones. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991:100:807-811.
21. Tyler RS. Moore BCL Kuk FK: Performance of some of the better cochlear-implant patients. J Speech Hear Res 1989:32:887-911.
22. GLM. Minitab Release 10 for Windows, 1994.
23. Knutson JF. Hinrichs JV, Tyler RS. Gantz BJ, Schartz HA, Woodworth G: Psychological predictors of au-diological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991:100:817-822.
24. Plomp R: Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1978:63:533-549.
25. Plomp R. Mimpcn AM: Speech-rc-eeption threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979:66:1333-1342.
26. Gelfand SA, Piper N, Silman S: Consonant recognition in quiet as a function of aging among normal hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1985:78:1198-1206.
27. van Rooij J. Plomp R: Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 1990:88:26 II-2624.
28. Jerger J. Chmiel R. Allen J. Wilson A: Effects of age and gender on di-chotie sentence identification. Ear Hear 1994:15:274-286.
29. Patterson RD. Nimmo-Smith I. Weber DL. Milroy R: The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity. the critical ratio, the audio-gram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 1982:72:1788-1803.