The multichannel auditory brainstem implant: How many electrodes make sense?

Journal of Neurosurgery

Volumn 100, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 16-23

  Kuchta, Johannes ^a   Otto, Steven R ^b   Shannon, Robert V ^b   Hitselberger, William E ^b   Brackmann, Derald E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Auditory brainstem implant; Cochlea; Neurofibromatosis Type 2; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY BRAIN STEM IMPLANT; BRAIN STEM; COCHLEA; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; HUMAN; IMPLANT; IMPLANTATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEURILEMOMA; NEUROFIBROMATOSIS; NEUROSURGERY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SOUND; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SURGICAL APPROACH; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VESTIBULAR NERVOUS SYSTEM;

EID: 0346993064     PISSN: 00223085     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/jns.2004.100.1.0016     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Blamey P, Pyman B, Gordon M, et al: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:342-348, 1992
2. Boothroyd A: CUNY Topic Related Sentence Test Laservideo Disk. New York: University of New York, 1998 (Video format)
3. Bredberg G, Lindstrom B: Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication performance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel-implanted patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:256-258, 1995
4. Brill SM, Gstottner W, Helms J, et al: Optimization of charmel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 18 (Suppl 6): S104-S106, 1997
5. Dorman M, Dankowski K, McCandless G, et al: Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear Hear 10:288-291, 1989
6. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 102:2403-2411, 1997
7. Elliott LL, Katz DR: Development of a New Children's Test of Speech Discrimination. St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1980 (Audio format)
8. Erber NP, Alencewicz CM: Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord 41:256-267, 1976
9. Finitzo-Hieber T, Matkin N, Cherow-Skalka E, et al: Sound Effects Recognition Test (SERT). St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1977 (Audio format)
10. Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH: Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40:1201-1215, 1997
11. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, et al: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1150-1163, 2001
12. Fu QJ, Shannon RV: Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1889-1900, 1999
13. Hanekorn JJ, Shannon RV: Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 104:2372-2384, 1998
14. Holmes AE, Kemker FJ, Merwin GE: The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech percepfion. Am J Otol 8:240-246, 1987
15. Kileny PR, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Zwolan TA, et al: Effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the Cochlear Corporation multichannel implant. Am J Otol 13:117-123, 1992
16. Kuchta J, Behr R, Walger M, et al: Rehabilitation of hearing and communication functions in patients with NF2. Acta Neurochir Suppl 79:109-111, 2002
17. Lamprecht A: Phoniatrische Aspekte bei der Rehabilitation von Cochlea-Implantat-Patienten. Laryngol Rhinol Otol 65:445-449, 1986
18. Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Finley CC: New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Prog Brain Res 97:313-321, 1993
19. McDermott HJ, McKay CM, Vandali AE: A new portable sound processor for the University of Melboume/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 91:3367-3371, 1992
20. Nagafuchi M: Intelligibility of distorted speech sounds shifted in frequency and time in normal children. Audiology 15:326-337, 1976
21. Otro SR, Brackmann DE, Hitselberger WE, et al: Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. J Neurosurg 96:1063-1071, 2002
22. Otto SR, Ebinger K, Staller SJ: Clinical trials with the auditory brain stem implant, in Waltzman SB, Cohen NL (eds): Cochlear Implants. New York: Thieme, 2000, pp 357-366
23. Otto SR, Shannon RV, Brackmann DE, et al: The multichannel auditory brainstem implant performance in twenty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118:291-303, 1998
24. Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336:367-373, 1992
25. Seligman P, McDermott H: Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:139-141, 1995
26. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, et al: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303-304, 1995
27. Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN: Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97:2568-2576, 1995
28. Van Tasell DJ, Greenfield DG, Logemann JJ, et al: Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 92:1247-1257, 1992
29. Van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, et al: Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1152-1161, 1987
30. Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, Ashbaugh C, et al: Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am J Otol 17:717-723, 1996