Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 67, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 873-880

  Henkin, Yael ^a,b   Kaplan Neeman, Ricky ^a,b   Muchnik, Chava ^a,b   Kronenberg, Jona ^b   Hildesheimer, Minka ^a,b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b SHEBA MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Children; Comfortable levels; Dynamic range; Electrode impedance; Nucleus 24M cochlear implant; Thresholds

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DYNAMICS; ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMPEDANCE; IMPLANT; IMPLANTATION; MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION; NIDATION; PARAMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME;

EID: 0042669956     PISSN: 01655876     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-5876(03)00131-9     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A. Parameters selection to optimize speech recognition with the nucleus implant. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 117:1997;188-195.
2. Sun J.C., Skinner M.W., Liu S.Y., Huang S.T. Effect of speech processor program modifications on cochlear implant recipients' threshold and maximum acceptable loudness levels. Am. J. Aud. 8:1999;128-136.
3. Roberts S. Speech processor fitting for cochlear implants. Cooper H. Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide. 1991;201-208 Whurr Publishing Ltd, London.
4. Hughes M.L., Vander Werff K.R., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Kelsay D.M.R., Teagle H.F.B., et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 22:2001;471-486.
5. Y. Henkin, R. Kaplan-Neeman, C. Muchnik, J. Kronenberg, M. Hildesheimer, Changes over time in the psycho-electric parameters in children with cochlear implants, Int. J. Aud. in press.
6. Hodges A.V., Balkany T.J., Ruth R.A., Lambert P.R., Dolan-Ash S., Schlofman J.J. Electrical middle ear muscle reflex: use in cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 117:1997;255-261.
7. Hodges A.V., Butts S., Dolan-Ash S., Balkany T.J. Using electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds to fit the Clarion cochlear implant. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 108:1999;64-68.
8. Abbas P.J., Brown C.J., Shallop J.K., Firszt J.B., Hughes M.L., Hong S.H., et al. Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear. 20:1999;45-59.
9. Brown C.J., Hughes M.L., Luk B., Abbas P.J., 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. 21:2000;151-163.
10. Franck K.H., Norton S.J. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measure with the neural response telemetry capabilities of cochlear corporation's CI24 device. Ear Hear. 22:2001;289-299.
11. Franck K.H. A model of a Nucleus 24 cochlear implant fitting protocol based on the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential. Ear Hear. 23:2002;67S-71S.
12. Seyle K., Brown C.J. Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear. 23:2002;72S-79S.
13. Thai-Van H., Chanal J.M., Coudert C., Veuillet E., Truy E., Collet L. Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int. J. Pediatric. Otorhinolaryngol. 58:2001;153-162.
14. Hughes M.L., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Wolaver A.A., Gervais J.P. Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear. 21:(2):2000;164-174.
15. W. Shapiro, S. Walzman, Changes in electrical thresholds over time in young children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear prosthesis, In: G.M. Clark, R.S.C. Cowan (Eds.), International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium - Melbourne, Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 104(166), 1995, pp. 177-178.
16. M. Lee, S. Kim, M. Huh, L. Kim, Changes in electrical thresholds and dynamic range over time in children with cochlear implants. In: C.S. Kim, S.O. Chang, D. Lim (Eds.), Updates in cochlear implantation, Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 57, 2000, pp. 339-342.
17. Pfingst B.E. Changes over time in thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res. 50:1990;225-236.
18. Ni D., Shepherd R.K., Seldon H.L., Xu S.A., Clark G.M., Millard R.E. Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. 1: Normal hearing kittens. Hear Res. 62:1992;63-81.
19. Shepherd R.K., Matsushima J., Martin R.L., Clark G.M. Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. 2: Deafened kittens. Hear Res. 81:1994;150-166.
20. Dorman M.F., Smith L.M., Dankowski K., McCandless G., Parkin J.L. Long term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds in the Ineraid cochlear implant. JSHR. 35:1992;1126-1130.
21. B. Swanson, P. Seligman, P. Carter, Impedance measurement of the nucleus 22-electrode array in patients, In: G.M. Clark, R.S.C. Cowan (eds.), International cochlear implant, speech and hearing symposium - Melbourne, Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 104(166), 1995, pp. 141-144.
22. Miller A.L., Morris D.J., Pfingst B.E. Effects of time after deafening and implantation on guinea pig electrical detection thresholds. Hear Res. 144:2000;175-186.
23. Xu J., Shepherd R.K., Millard R.E., Clark G.M. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study. Hear Res. 105:1997;1-29.
24. Kawano A., Seldon H.L., Clark G.M., Ramsden R.T., Raine C.H. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical precepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. Stockh. 118:1998;313-326.
25. Kubo T., Iwaki T., Ohkusa M., Doi K., Uno A., Yamamoto K., Fujii K. Auditory plasticity in cochlear implant patients. Acta Otolaryngol. Stockh. 116:1996;224-227.
26. Geier L.L., Norton S.J. The effects of limiting the number of Nucleus 22 cochlear implant electrodes programmed on speech perception. Ear Hear. 13:(5):1992;340-348.
27. Saunder E., Cohen L., Aschendorff A., Shapiro W., Knight M., Stecker M., et al. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear. 23:2002;28S-40S.
28. Shiroma M., Honda K., Yamanaka N., Kawano J., Yukawa K., Kumakawa K., Funasaka S. Factors contributing to phoneme recognition ability of users of the 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 101:1992;32-37.