Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 948-956

  Tykocinski, Michael ^a   Cohen, Lawrence T ^a   Cowan, Robert S ^a  

^a University of Melbourne   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; Electrical impedance; Electrical stimulation; Fibrous tissue

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA POTENTIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRIC RESISTANCE; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; IMPEDANCE; IMPLANTATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; POLARIZATION IMPEDANCE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURFACE PROPERTY; WAVEFORM;

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE TESTS; ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS;

EID: 24944455376     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185056.99888.f3     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Dowell RC, Dettman SJ, Blamey PJ, et al. Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long term outcomes. Coch Impl Int 2002;3:1-182.
2. Agnew WF, McCreery DB, Bullara LA, et al. Development and evaluation of safe methods of intracortical and peripheral nerve stimulation. NIH progress Report October 1, 1983. NIH Contract NS-0-2319; Huntington Institute of Applied Medical Research, Pasadena, CA.
3. Shepherd RK, Franz BK, Clark GM. The biocompatibility and safety of cochlear protheses. In Clark GM, Tong YC, Patrick JF, eds. Cochlear Protheses. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:69-98.
4. Xu J, Shepherd RK, Millard RE, et al. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathologic study. Hear Res 1997;105:1-29.
5. Tykocinski M, Duan Y, Tabor B. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using high surface (HiQ) platinum electrodes. Hear Res 2001;159:53-68.
6. Charlet de Sauvage R, Lima da Costa D, Erre JP, et al. Electrical and physiological changes during short term and chronic electrical stimulation of the normal cochlea. Hear Res 1997;110:119-34.
7. Busby PA, Plank KL, Whitford LA. Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochl Impl Int 2002;3:87-103.
8. Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, et al. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Nucleus 24 M Cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2003;67:873-80.
9. Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Cohen LT, et al. The Contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new peri-modiolar design. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:33-42.
10. Cohen LT, Xu J, Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Raja D, Cowan RSC. Evaluation of x-ray analysis method: comparison of electrode position estimates with information from phase contrast x-ray and histology. Presented at the 5th European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation, Antwerp, Belgium, June 4-7, 2000.
11. Cohen LT, Xu J, Xu S-A, et al. Improved and simplified methods for specifying positions of the electrode bands of a cochlear implant array. Am J Otol 1996;17:859-65.
12. Frijns JH, de Snoo SL, Schoonhoven R. Potential distributions and neural excitation patterns in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 1995;87:170-86.