Comparison of a paired or sequential stimulation paradigm with advanced bionics' high-resolution mode

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 941-947

  Buechner, Andreas ^a,c   Frohne Buechner, Carolin ^a,b   Stoever, Timo ^a   Gaertner, Lutz ^a   Battmer, Rolf Dieter ^a   Lenarz, Thomas ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b Advanced Bionics GmbH   (Germany)

^c Department of Otolaryngology ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; High stimulation rate; Simultaneous stimulation; Speech coding

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BIONICS; CLARION SPEECH CODING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MULTICHANNEL RECORDER; NOISE; PAIRED STIMULATION PARADIGM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEQUENTIAL STIMULATION PARADIGM; SPEECH ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 24944514839     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185069.27705.f0     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kiefer JV, Ilberg Hubner-Egner C, Rupprecht V, Knecht R. Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: Effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:1009-20.
2. Loizou P, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108:790-802.
3. Buechner A, Frohne-Buechner C, Battmer RD, Lenarz T. Investigation of stimulation rates between 500 and 5000 pps with the Clarion 1.2, Nucleus CI24 and Clarion CII devices. Presented at the 4th International Symposium on Electronic Implants in Otology and Conventional Hearing Aids, Toulouse, France, June 5-7, 2003.
4. Battmer RD, Zilberman Y, Haake H, et al. Simultaneous analog stimulation (SAS)-continuous interleaved sampler (CIS) pilot comparison study in Europe. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:69-73.
5. Stickney G, Loizou P, Mishra L, et al. Channel interaction and speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108(5, Pt. 2):2601.
6. Zimmerman-Phillips S, Murad, C. Programming features of the Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;108:17-21.
7. Lenarz T, Kuzma J, Weber BP, et al. New Clarion electrode with positioner: Insertion studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000;185:16-8.
8. Arnold A, Boyle P. Early results on high resolution (HiRes) programming with the Soundwave fitting software. Presented as a poster at the 7th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Related Audiological Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, May 22-24, 2003.
9. Lehnhardt E, Laszig R. Praxis der Audiometrie. Stuttgart: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2000.
10. Schmidt M, Hochmeir-Desoyer I, Schulz E, Moser L. Der HSM-Satztest German Fortschritte der Akustik. Kiel, Germany: DAGA, 1997.
11. Hochmair-Desoyer I, Schulz E, Moser L, Schmidt M. The HSM Sentence Test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 1998;18:83.
12. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150-63.
13. Spahr A, Dorman MF, Kirk KI. A comparison of performance among patients fit with the CII Hi-Resolution, 3G and TEMPO+ processors. Presented as a poster at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar, California, 2003.
14. Rubinstein JT, Hong R. Signal coding in cochlear implants: Exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2003;191:14-19.
15. Shannon RV. The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design. Am J Audiol 2002;11:124-7.
16. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT, Wehner DM, Horn D. Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:590-5.
17. Morse RP, Evans EF. Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise. Nat Med 1996;2:928-32.
18. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.
19. Dorman MF, Loizou PF, Fitzke J, Tu Z. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3583-5.
20. Ifukube T, White RL. Current distribution produced inside and outside the cochlea from a scala tympani electrode array. IEEE BME 1987;34:883-90.
21. Boex C, de Balthasar C, Kos MI, Pelizzone M. Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114(4, Pt. 1):2049-57.
22. Chatterjee M. Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: Envelope vs tonotopic component. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;113 (4, Pt. 1):20042-53.
23. Boex C, Kos MI, Pelizzone M. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114(4, Pt 1):2058-65.