Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 651-668

  Plant, Kerrie ^a,b   Law, Mary Ann ^a,b   Whitford, Lesley ^a,b   Knight, Michelle ^a,b   Tari, Sylvia ^a,c   Leigh, Jaime ^a,c   Pedley, Karen ^a,d   Nel, Esti ^b  

^a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering   (Australia)

^b Research and Technology Labs   (Australia)

^c ROYAL VICTORIAN EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d Queensland Hearing   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DISEASE DURATION; ELECTRODE; EVOKED RESPONSE; FAMILIAL DISEASE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MENIERE DISEASE; MIDDLE EAR DISEASE; OTOSCLEROSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FITTING; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOFTWARE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33748593360     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000188201.86799.01     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L., Hnath, T. (1985). A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set equivalence and short term learning. Internal report RCI 10, Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Centre, City University of New York.
2. Brown, C. J, Abbas, P. J. (1990). Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: Parametric data from the cat. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2205-2210.
3. Brown, C. J., Hughes, M. L., Luk, B., Abbas, P. J., Wolaver, A, Gervais, J. (2000). The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: Data from adults. Ear & Hearing, 21, 151-163.
4. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Ear & Hearing, 16, 186.
5. Gantz, B. J., Brown, C. J, Abbas, P. J. (1994). Intraoperative measures of electrically evoked auditory nerve compound action potential. American Journal of Otology, 15, 137-144.
6. Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., Wolaver, A. A, Gervais, J. P. (2000). Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear & Hearing, 21, 164-174.
7. Peterson, G., Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 62-70.
8. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E. (1999). Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 814-828.
9. Smoorenburg, G. F., Willeboer, C., van Dijk, J. E. (2002). Speech perception in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 7, 335-347.
10. Almqvist, B., Willstedt-Swenson, U. (1998). The Lund technique, a method to set an initial MAP based on objective measures. Paper presented at the Nucleus European Satellite Symposium, Paediatric Cochlear Implant Conference."
11. Plant, K.L. (2000). Comparison of a standard and interpolation method of T- and C-level measurement, using both narrowly-spaced and widely-spaced electrodes. Cochlear White Paper.