Trends in Cochlear Implants

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-34

  Zeng, Fan Gang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COGNITION; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MIDDLE EAR IMPLANT; MUSIC; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REVIEW; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH; TELEPHONE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR NERVE; CUES; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MUSIC; PITCH PERCEPTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY; TIME FACTORS; TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 3142617888     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/108471380400800102     Document Type: Article

References (157)

1. Abbas PJ Brown CJ. Electrically evoked brainstem potentials in cochlear implant patients with multi-electrode stimulation. Hear Res 36: 153–162, 1988.
2. Andreev AM Gersuni GV Volokhov AA. On the electrical excitability of the human ear: On the effect of alternating currents on the affected auditory apparatus. J Physiol USSR 18: 250–265, 1935.
3. Arlinger S Gatehouse S Bentler RA et al., Report of the Eriksholm Workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatization. Ear Hear 17: 87S–98S, 1996.
4. Bekesy GV. Experiments in Hearing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
5. Bierer JA Middlebrooks JC. Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: Channel interactions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 5: 32–48, 2004.
6. Bilger RC. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve and auditory prostheses: A review of the literature. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 11–20, 1977a.
7. Bilger RC. Psychoacoustic evaluation of present prostheses. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 92–104, 1977b.
8. Bilger RC Black FO. Auditory prostheses in perspective. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 3–10, 1977.
9. Bilger RC Black FO Hopkinson NT. Research plan for evaluating subjects presently fitted with implanted auditory prostheses. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 21–24, 1977a.
10. Bilger RC Hopkinson NT. Hearing performance with the auditory prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 76–91, 1977.
11. Bilger RC Stenson NR Payne JL. Subject acceptance of implanted auditory prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 86: 165–176, 1977b.
12. Blamey P Arndt P Bergeron F et al., Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1: 293–306, 1996.
13. Brown CJ. Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11: 383–387, 2003.
14. Cazals Y Pelizzone M Saudan O et al., Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 96: 2048–2054, 1994.
15. Chasin M. Bone anchored and middle ear implant hearing aids. Trends in Amplification 6 (2): 33–38, 2002.
16. Chatterjee M. Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: Envelope versus tonotopic components. J Acoust Soc Am 113: 2042–2053, 2003.
17. Cheng AK Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: A meta-analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125: 1214–1218, 1999.
18. Cheng AK Rubin HR Powe NR et al., Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. Jama 284: 850–856, 2000.
19. Ching TY Dillon H Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103: 1128–1140, 1998.
20. Ching TY Incerti P Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 25: 9–21, 2004.
21. Chung K Waltzman S Zeng FG. Using hearing aid directional microphones and noise reduction algorithms to enhance cochlear implant performance. Acoust Res Lett Online (in press), 2004.
22. Clark GM Tong YC Dowell RC. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech-processing strategies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 93: 127–131, 1984.
23. Collins LM Wakefield GH Feinman GR. Temporal pattern discrimination and speech recognition under electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 96: 2731–2737, 1994.
24. Collins LM Zwolan TA Wakefield GH. Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 101: 440–455, 1997.
25. Djourno A Eyries C. Auditory prosthesis by means of a distant electrical stimulation of the sensory nerve with the use of an indwelt coiling. Presse Med 65: 1417, 1957.
26. Djourno A Eyries C Vallancien B. Electric excitation of the cochlear nerve in man by induction at a distance with the aid of micro-coil included in the fixture. C R Seances Soc Biol Fil 151: 423–425, 1957a.
27. Djourno A Eyries C Vallancien P. Preliminary attempts of electrical excitation of the auditory nerve in man, by permanently inserted micro-apparatus. Bull Acad Natl Med 141: 481–483, 1957b.
28. Donaldson GS Viemeister NF Nelson DA. Psychometric functions and temporal integration in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 101: 3706–3721, 1997.
29. 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.
30. Doyle JH Doyal JB Turnbull FM. Electrical stimulation of the eighth cranial nerve. Arch Otolaryngol 80: 388–391, 1964.
31. Dudly H. The vocoder. In: Bell Labs Record, pp 122–126, 1939.
32. Dynes SB Delgutte B. Phase-locking of auditory-nerve discharges to sinusoidal electric stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res 58: 79–90, 1992.
33. Eddington DK Dobelle WH Brackmann DE et al., Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 87: 1–39, 1978.
34. 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.
35. Formby C Sherlock LP Ferguson SH. Enhancements of the edges of temporal masking functions by complex patterns of overshoot and undershoot. J Acoust Soc Am 107: 2169–2187, 2000.
36. Friesen LM Shannon RV Slattery WH. The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Am J Otol 20: 729–734, 1999.
37. Frijns JH de Snoo SL ten Kate JH. Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 95: 33–48, 1996.
38. Fu QJ. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear-implant users. Neuroreport 13: 1635–1639, 2002.
39. Fu QJ Shannon RV. Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104: 2570–2577, 1998.
40. Fu QJ Shannon RV Galvin JJ. Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 112: 1664–1674, 2002.
41. Fu QJ Zeng FG. Identification of temporal envelope cues in Chinese tone recognition. Asia Pacific J Speech Lang Hear 5: 45–57, 2000.
42. Galvin J Zeng FG. Musical instrument perception in cochlear implant listeners. Proc of 16th Inter Cong Acoust and 135th Meet Acoust Soc Am 3: 2219–2220, 1998.
43. Gantz BJ Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 113: 1726–1730, 2003.
44. Geers AE. Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 24: 59S–68S, 2003.
45. Gfeller K Knutson JF Woodworth G et al., Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol 9: 1–19, 1998.
46. Gfeller K Lansing CR. Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear-implant users. J Speech Hear Res 34: 916–920, 1991.
47. Gfeller K Woodworth G Robin DA et al., Perception of rhythmic and sequential pitch patterns by normally hearing adults and adult cochlear-implant users. Ear Hear 18: 252–260, 1997.
48. Giraud AL Price CJ Graham JM et al., Cross-modal plasticity underpins language recovery after cochlear implantation. Neuron 30: 657–663, 2001.
49. Gomaa NA Rubinstein JT Lowder MW et al., Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 24: 539–544, 2003.
50. Hawley ML Litovsky RY Colburn HS. Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. J Acoust Soc Am 105: 3436–3448, 1999.
51. Henry BA McKay CM McDermott HJ et al., The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 108: 1269–1280, 2000.
52. Henry BA Turner CW. The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 113: 2861–2873, 2003.
53. Hogan CA Turner CW. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104: 432–441, 1998.
54. Horwitz MR Pugh JE Jr. Anderson DJ et al., Long-term recording of primate cochlear potentials through an inner ear electrode implant. Surg Forum 23: 479–480, 1972.
55. House WF. Goals of the cochlear implant. Laryngoscope 84: 1883–1887, 1974.
56. House WF Urban J. Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlea in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 82: 504–517, 1973.
57. Javel E Shepherd RK. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. III. Response initiation sites and temporal fine structure Hear Res 140: 45–76, 2000.
58. Jolly CN Spelman FA Clopton BM. Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: Modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43: 857–865, 1996.
59. Jones R Stevens S Lurie M. Three mechanisms of hearing by electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 12: 281–290, 1940.
60. Kirk KI Pisoni DB Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear-implant users. Ear Hear 16: 470–481, 1995.
61. Klinke R Kral A Heid S et al., Recruitment of the auditory cortex in congenitally deaf cats by long-term cochlear electrostimulation. Science 285: 1729–1733, 1999.
62. Kong YY Cruz R Jones JA et al., Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 25: 173–185, 2004a.
63. Kong YY Stickney GS Zeng FG. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am (in revision), 2004b.
64. Kral A Hartmann R Tillein J et al., Hearing after congenital deafness: Central auditory plasticity and sensory deprivation. Cereb Cortex 12: 797–807, 2002.
65. Lawson DT Wilson BS Zerbi M et al., Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor. Am J Otol 19: 758–761, 1998.
66. Leake PA Hradek GT Snyder RL. Chronic electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant promotes survival of spiral ganglion neurons after neonatal deafness. J Comp Neurol 412: 543–562, 1999.
67. Lee DS Lee JS Oh SH et al., Cross-modal plasticity and cochlear implants. Nature 409: 149–150, 2001.
68. Liberman MC. The cochlear frequency map for the cat: Labeling auditory-nerve fibers of known characteristic frequency. J Acoust Soc Am 72: 1441–1449, 1982.
69. Licklider J Pollack I. Effects of differentiation, integration, and infinite peak clipping on the intelligibility of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 20: 42–51, 1948.
70. Linthicum FH Jr. Fayad J Otto SR et al., Cochlear implant histopathology. Am J Otol 12: 245–311, 1991.
71. Litvak L Delgutte B Eddington D. Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: Modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 110: 368–379, 2001.
72. Loizou PC Stickney G Mishra L et al., Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear 24: 12–19, 2003.
73. Long CJ Eddington DK Colburn HS et al., Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear-implant user. J Acoust Soc Am 114: 1565–1574, 2003.
74. Luce PA Pisoni DB. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 19: 1–36, 1998.
75. McCreery DB Shannon RV Moore JK Chatterjee M. Accessing the tonotopic organization of the ventral cochlear nucleus by intranuclear microstimulation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 6: 391–399, 1998.
76. McDermott HJ McKay CM. Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101: 1622–1631, 1997.
77. McDermott HJ McKay CM Vandali AE. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 91: 3367–3371, 1992.
78. Meyer TA Frisch SA Pisoni DB et al., Modeling open-set spoken word recognition in postlingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: Some preliminary results with the neighborhood activation model. Otol Neurotol 24: 612–620, 2003.
79. Michelson RP. The results of electrical stimulation of the cochlea in human sensory deafness. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 80: 914–919, 1971.
80. Moog JS Geers AE. Speech and language acquisition in young children after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 32: 1127–1141, 1999.
81. Moore BC Huss M Vickers DA et al., A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 34: 205–224, 2000.
82. Moore CM Vollmer M Leake PA et al., The effects of chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation on inferior colliculus spatial representation in adult deafened cats. Hear Res 164: 82–96, 2002.
83. Muller J Schon F Helms J. Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 23: 198–206, 2002.
84. Nadol JB Jr. Shiao JY Burgess BJ et al., Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110: 883–891, 2001.
85. Nelson DA Schmitz JL Donaldson GS et al., Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 100: 2393–2414, 1996.
86. Nelson DA Van Tasell DJ Schroder AC et al., Electrode ranking of “place pitch” and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 98: 1987–1999, 1995.
87. Nie K Stickney G Zeng FG. Encoding fine structure to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng (in press), 2004.
88. Niparko JK Oviatt DL Coker NJ et al., Facial nerve stimulation with cochlear implantation. VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104: 826–830, 1991.
89. Oxenham AJ Bernstein JG Penagos H. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 1421–1425, 2004.
90. Palmer CS Niparko JK Wyatt JR et al., A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125: 1221–1228, 1999.
91. Peterson A Shallop J Driscoll C et al., Outcomes of cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy. J Am Acad Audiol 14: 188–201, 2003.
92. Pfingst BE Franck KH Xu L et al., Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2: 87–103, 2001.
93. Pfingst BE Morris DJ Miller AL. Effects of electrode configuration on threshold functions for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res 85: 76–84, 1995.
94. Pijl S. Labeling of musical interval size by cochlear implant patients and normally hearing subjects. Ear Hear 18: 364–372, 1997.
95. Pijl S Schwarz DW. Melody recognition and musical interval perception by deaf subjects stimulated with electrical pulse trains through single cochlear implant electrodes. J Acoust Soc Am 98: 886–895, 1995.
96. Pisoni DB. Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: Some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear 21: 70–78, 2000.
97. Pisoni DB Cleary M. Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 24: 106S–120S, 2003.
98. Pisoni DB Cleary M. Learning, memory, and cogntive processes in deaf children following cochlear implantation. In: Zeng FG Popper AN Fay RR, ed. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. New York. Springer, 377–426, 2004.
99. Ponton CW Don M Eggermont JJ et al., Auditory system plasticity in children after long periods of complete deafness. Neuroreport 8: 61–65, 1996.
100. Reefhuis J Honein MA Whitney CG et al., Risk of bacterial meningitis in children with cochlear implants. N Engl J Med 349: 435–445, 2003.
101. Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336: 367–373, 1992.
102. Rosen S Faulkner A Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 106: 3629–3636, 1999.
103. Rousche PJ Normann RA. Chronic intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of cat sensory cortex using the Utah Intracortical Electrode Array. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7: 56–68, 1999.
104. Rubinstein JT Hong R. Signal coding in cochlear implants: Exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 191: 14–19, 2003.
105. Shannon RV. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res 11: 157–189, 1983.
106. Shannon RV. Forward masking in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 88: 741–744, 1990.
107. Shannon RV. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 91: 2156–2164, 1992.
108. Shannon RV Zeng FG Kamath V et al., Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270: 303–304, 1995.
109. Shannon RV Zeng FG Wygonski J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 104: 2467–2476, 1998.
110. Sharma A Dorman MF Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: Implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear 23: 532–539, 2002.
111. Shepherd RK Hardie NA. Deafness-induced changes in the auditory pathway: implications for cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 6: 305–318, 2001.
112. Shinohara T Bredberg G Ulfendahl M et al., Neurotrophic factor intervention restores auditory function in deafened animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 1657–1660, 2002.
113. Simmons FB Epley JM Lummis RC et al., Auditory nerve: Electrical stimulation in man. Science 148: 104–106, 1965.
114. Skinner MW Holden LK Holden TA et al., Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. Ear Hear 12: 3–22, 1991.
115. Skinner MW Ketten DR Holden LK et al., CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 3: 332–350, 2002.
116. Smith ZM Delgutte B Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 416: 87–90, 2002.
117. Snyder RL Rebscher SJ Cao KL et al., Chronic intra-cochlear electrical stimulation in the neonatally deafened cat. I: Expansion of central representation. Hear Res 50: 7–33, 1990.
118. Starr A Picton TW Sininger Y et al., Auditory neuropathy. Brain 119 (Pt 3):741–753, 1996.
119. Stevens S. On hearing by electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 8: 191–195, 1937.
120. Stevens S Jones R. The mechanism of hearing by electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 10: 261–269, 1939.
121. Stoddart RL Cooper HR. Electrode complications in 100 adults with multichannel cochlear implants. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 24: 18–20, 1999.
122. Suesserman MF Spelman FA. Lumped-parameter model for in vivo cochlear stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 40: 237–245, 1993.
123. Summerfield AQ Marshall DH Barton GR et al., A costutility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128: 1255–1262, 2002.
124. Svirsky MA. Mathematical modeling of vowel perception by users of analog multichannel cochlear implants: Temporal and channel-amplitude cues. J Acoust Soc Am 107: 1521–1529, 2000.
125. Svirsky MA Robbins AM Kirk KI et al., Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 11: 153–158, 2000.
126. Svirsky MA Silveira A Suarez H et al., Auditory learning and adaptation after cochlear implantation: A preliminary study of discrimination and labeling of vowel sounds by cochlear-implant users. Acta Otolaryngol 121: 262–265, 2001.
127. Teoh SW Neuburger HS Svirsky MA. Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear-implant users. Audiol Neurootol 8: 269–285, 2003.
128. Tyler R Parkinson AJ Fryauf-Bertchy H et al., Speech perception by prelingually deaf children and postlingually deaf adults with cochlear implant. Scand Audiol Suppl 46: 65–71, 1997.
129. Tyler RS Dunn CC Witt SA et al., Update on bilateral cochlear implantation. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11: 388–393, 2003.
130. Tyler RS Parkinson AJ Wilson BS et al., Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: Speech perception and localization. Ear Hear 23: 98–105, 2002.
131. van den Honert C Stypulkowski PH. Single fiber mapping of spatial excitation patterns in the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Hear Res 29: 195–206, 1987.
132. van Dijk JE van Olphen AF Langereis MC et al., Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 38: 109–116, 1999.
133. van Hoesel R Ramsden R Odriscoll M. Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear-implant user. Ear Hear 23: 137–149, 2002.
134. van Hoesel RJ Clark GM. Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 102: 495–507, 1997.
135. van Hoesel RJ Tyler RS. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 113: 1617–1630, 2003.
136. Vandali AE. Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 109: 2049–2061, 2001.
137. Vollmer M Snyder RL Leake PA et al., Temporal properties of chronic cochlear electrical stimulation determine temporal resolution of neurons in cat inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 82: 2883–2902, 1999.
138. Volta A. On the electricity excited by mere contact of conducting substances of different kinds. Royal Soc Philos Trans 90: 403–431, 1800.
139. von Ilberg C Kiefer J Tillein J et al., Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 61: 334–340, 1999.
140. Vongphoe M Zeng FG. Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am (Submitted), 2004.
141. Wei C Cao K Wang Z et al., Rate discrimination and tone recognition in mandarin-speaking cochlear-implant listeners. Chinese J. Otorhinolaryngol. 34: 84–88, 1999.
142. Wei C Cao K Zeng FG. Mandarin tone recognition in cochlear-implant subjects. Hear Res (submitted), 2004.
143. Wilson BS Finley CC Lawson DT et al., Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 352: 236–238, 1991a.
144. Wilson BS Lawson DT Finley CC et al., Coding strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Am J Otol 12 Suppl:56–61, 1991b.
145. Wilson BS Lawson DT Finley CC et al., Importance of patient and processor variables in determining outcomes with cochlear implants. J Speech Hear Res 36: 373–379, 1993.
146. Wilson BS Lawson DT Muller JM et al., Cochlear implants: Some likely next steps. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2003.
147. Xu L Tsai Y Pfingst BE. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: Implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am 112: 247–258, 2002.
148. Zeng FG. Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res 174: 101–106, 2002.
149. Zeng FG Fu QJ Morse R. Human hearing enhanced by noise. Brain Res 869: 251–255, 2000.
150. Zeng FG Galvin JJ. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 20: 60–74, 1999.
151. Zeng FG Galvin JJ 3rd Zhang C. Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Neuroreport 9: 1845–1848, 1998.
152. Zeng FG Grant G Niparko J et al., Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 111: 377–386, 2002.
153. Zeng FG Nie K Liu S et al., On the dichotomy in auditory perception between temporal envelope and fine structure cues. J Acoust Soc Am (in press), 2004a.
154. Zeng FG Popper AN Fay RR. Cochlear implants: Auditory prostheses and electric hearing. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004b.
155. Zeng FG Shannon RV. Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation. Hear Res 60: 231–235, 1992.
156. Zeng FG Shannon RV. Loudness-coding mechanisms inferred from electric stimulation of the human auditory system. Science 264: 564–566, 1994.
157. Zeng FG Shannon RV. Psychophysical laws revealed by electric hearing. Neuroreport 10: 1931–1935, 1999.