Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 407-416

  Buechner, Andreas ^a   Frohne Buechner, Carolin ^a,b   Gaertner, Lutz ^a   Lesinski Schiedat, Anke ^a   Battmer, Rolf Dieter ^a   Lenarz, Thomas ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b Advanced Bionics GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; High stimulation rate; Speech coding

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIONICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HIGH RESOLUTION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIONICS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33748635422     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020600625155     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Arnold L., & Boyle P. 2003. Early results on high resolution (High Resolution Mode) programming with the Soundwave fitting software. Presented at the 7th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Related Audiological Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, May 22-24.
2. Battmer R.D., Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Popp P. & Lenarz T. 2002. The Clarion® CII High Resolution Mode: experience after six months. Presented as a poster during the 7th International Cochlear Implant Conference, Manchester, UK, September 4-6.
3. Battmer, R.D., Zilberman, Y., Haake, P., et al. 1999. Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)-Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) pilot comparison study in Europe. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl , 177, 69-73.
4. Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Battmer R.D. & Lenarz T. 2003. Investigation of stimulation rates between 500 and 5000 pps with the Clarion 1.2, Nucleus CI24 and Clarion CII devices. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Electronic Implants in Otology & Conventional Hearing Aids. Toulouse, France.
5. Büchner A., Frohne C., Battmer R.D. & Lenarz T. 2003a. Investigation of Stimulation Rates between 800 and 5000 pps with the CLARION CII Implant. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
6. Gstoettner, W., Adunka, O., Hamzavi, J., Lautischer, M. & Baumgartner, W.D. 2000. Speech discrimination in post-lingually deaf patients with cochlear implants. Wien Klin Wochenschr, 112(11), 487-91.
7. Hochmair-Desoyer, I., Schulz, E., Moser, L. & Schmidt, M. 1998. The HSM Sentence Test as a Tool for Evaluating the Speech Understanding in Noise of Cochlear Implant Users. The Am J Otol, 18, 83.
8. Kiefer, J., Hohl, S., Sturzebecher, E., Pfennigdorff, T. & Gstoettner, W. 2001. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology, 40(1), 32-42.
9. Kiefer, J., v. Ilberg, C., Hubner-Egner, J., Rupprecht, V. & Knecht, R. 2000. 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, 109, 1009-1020.
10. Lehnhardt E. & Laszig R. 2000. Praxis der Audiometrie. Thieme, Stuttgart, 2000.
11. Lenarz, T., Kuzma, J., Weber, B.P., et al. 2000. New Clarion electrode with positioner: insertion studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 185, 16-18.
12. Lenarz T., Tasche C., Frohne C. et al. 2001. Comparison of different Clarion and Nucleus Electrode Systems within Matched-Paired Groups. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
13. Loizou, P., Poroy, O. & Dorman, M. 2000. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 108(2), 790-802.
14. Rubinstein, J.T. & Hong, R. 2003. Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 191, 14-19.
15. Schmidt M., Hochmeir-Desoyer I., Schulz E., & Moser L. Der HSM-Satztest [German]. Fortschritte der Akustik - DAGA, Kiel, Germany, 1997.
16. Segel P., Voelkel A., Faltys M., Hartley L. & Kessler D. 2001. The systematic evaluation of Parameters in the Fitting of High Resolution Strategies in the Clarion Bionic Ear System. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
17. Skinner, M.W., Holden, L.K., Whitford, L.A., Plant, K.L., Psarros, C., et al. 2002. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear, 23(3), 207-23.
18. Skinner, M.W., Fourakis, M.S., Holden, T.A., Holden, L.K. & Demorest, M.E. 1996. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. I. Vowels. Ear Hear, 17(3), 182-97.
19. Skinner, M.W., Fourakis, M.S., Holden, T.A., Holden, L.K. & Demorest, M.E. 1999. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. II. Consonants. Ear Hear, 20(6), 443-60.
20. Staller, S., Menapace, C., Domico, E., et al. 1997. Speech perception abilities of adult and pediatric Nucleus implant recipients using the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) coding strategy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 117(3 Pt1), 236-42.
21. Vandali, A.E., Whitford, L.A., Plant, K.L. & Clark, G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21(6), 608-24.
22. Whitford, L.A., Seligman, P.M., Everingham, C.E., et al. 1995. Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in post-linguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngol, 115(5), 629-37.
23. Zimmerman-Phillips, S. & Murad, C. 1999. Programming Features of the Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 108, 17-21.