MED-EL Cochlear Implants: State of the Art and a Glimpse Into the Future

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 201-219

  Hochmair, Ingeborg ^a   Nopp, Peter ^a   Jolly, Claude ^a   Schmidt, Marcus ^a   Schößer, Hansjörg ^a   Garnham, Carolyn ^a   Anderson, Ilona ^a  

^a MED EL GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

bilateral; cochlear implant; drug delivery; electric acoustic stimulation; fine structure processing; MAESTRO

Indexed keywords

CORTICOSTEROID;

AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CODING; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; ELECTRONICS; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; HYBRID; IMPLANTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; SPEECH; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FORECASTING; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

EID: 33845565130     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713806296720     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Zeng FG. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif. 2004;8: 1–34.
2. Helms J Muller J Schon F et al., Comparison of the TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor and the CIS PRO+ body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63: 31–40.
3. Hilbert D. Grundzüge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner; 1912.
4. Pickles JO. An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing. 2nd ed. London, UK: Academic Press; 1988.
5. Smith ZM Delgutte B Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature. 2002;416: 87–90.
6. Stöbich B Zierhofer C Hochmair E. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear. 1999;20: 104–116.
7. Wilson BS. Strategies for representing speech information with cochlear implants. In: Niparko JK Kirk KI Mellon NK et al., eds. Cochlear Implants: Principles & Practices. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000: 5–46.
8. Wong AO Wong LL. Tone perception of Cantonese-speaking prelingually hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130: 751–758.
9. Fu QJ Chinchilla S Galvin JJ. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2004;5: 253–260.
10. McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif. 2004;8: 49–82.
11. Zierhofer C. Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel-specific sequences. World patent WO 01/13991 A1. 2001.
12. Wilson BS Lawson DT Zerbi M Finley CC. Virtual channels interleaved sampling (VCIS) processor. First Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-2-2401, Neural Prosthesis Program. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1992.
13. McDermott HJ McKay CM. Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;96: 155–162.
14. Mitterbacher A Zierhofer C Schatzer R Kals M. Encoding fine time structure with channel specific sampling sequences. Paper presented at: Conference on Implantable Auditory Prosthesis; August 4, 2005; Pacific Grove, Calif.
15. Mitterbacher A Zierhofer C Schatzer R et al., Pitch, fine structure and CSSS—results from patient tests. Paper presented at: British Cochlear Implant Group Academic Meeting; April 18–19, 2005; Birmingham, UK.
16. Schatzer R Kals M Zierhofer C. Encoding fine time structure with CSSS: concept and first results. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156(suppl 119): 93–94.
17. Wilson B Zerbi M Finely C Lawson D van den Honert C. Relationships between temporal patterns of nerve activity and pitch judgments for cochlear implant patients. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, Neural Prosthesis Program. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1997.
18. Zeng FG. Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res. 2002;174: 101–106.
19. Donaldson GS Kreft HA. Place pitch discrimination of single versus dual electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118: 623–626.
20. Arsenault MD Punch JT. Nonsense-syllable recognition in noise using monaural and binaural listening strategies. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105: 1821–1830.
21. Bronkhorst AW Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83: 1508–1516.
22. Bronkhorst AW Plomp R. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989;86: 1374–1383.
23. Carhart R. Monaural and binaural discrimination against competing sentences. Int Audiol. 1965;4: 5–10.
24. Cox RM DeChicchis AR Wark DJ. Demonstration of binaural advantage in audiometric test rooms. Ear Hear. 1981;2: 194–201.
25. MacKeith NW Coles RRA. Binaural advantages in hearing of speech. J Laryngol Otol. 1971;85: 213–232.
26. Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Norwood, Australia: Boomerang Press; 2002.
27. Durlach NI Colburn HS. Binaural phenomena. In: Carterette EC Friedman MP ed. Handbook of Perception. Vol 4. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1978: 365–466.
28. Byrne D. Clinical issues and options in binaural hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear. 1981;2: 187–193.
29. Ricketts T Lindley G Henry P. Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear Hear. 2001;22: 348–361.
30. Dermody P Byrne D. Auditory localization by hearing-impaired persons using binaural in-the-ear hearing aids. Br J Audiol. 1975;9: 93–101.
31. Byrne D Noble W LePage B. Effects of long-term bilateral and unilateral fitting of different hearing aid types on the ability to locate sounds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992;3: 369–382.
32. Green JD Mills DM Bell BA Luxford WM Tonokawa LL. Binaural cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1992;6: 502–506.
33. Balkany T Boggess W Dinner B. Binaural cochlear implantation: comparison of 3M/House and Nucleus devices with evidence of sensory integration. Laryngoscope. 1988;98: 1040–1043.
34. Pijl S. Single-channel versus bilateral multichannel cochlear implant results: a case report. Ear Hear. 1991;12: 431–433.
35. van Hoesel RJM Tong YC Hollow RD Clark GM. Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;94: 3178–3189.
36. Müller J Schön F Helms J. Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 2002;23: 198–206.
37. Schön F Müller J Helms J. Speech reception thresholds obtained in a symmetrical four-loudspeaker arrangement from bilateral users of MED-EL cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2002;23: 710–714.
38. Schleich P Nopp P D'Haese P. Head shadow, squelch and summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2004;25: 197–204.
39. Au D Hui Y Wei W. Superiority of bilateral cochlear implantation over unilateral cochlear implantation in tone discrimination in Chinese patients. Am J Otolaryngol. 2003;24: 19–23.
40. Kong W Yu L Xu Y et al., Benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation in congenital prelingually deafened Chinese-speaking children [in Chinese]. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 2003;17: 577–579.
41. Nopp P Schleich P D'Haese P. Sound localization in bilateral users of MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2004;25: 205–214.
42. Schoen F Mueller J Helms J Nopp P. Sound localization and sensitivity to inter-aural cues in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26: 429–437.
43. Senn P Kompis M Vischer M Häusler R. Minimum audible angle, just noticeable interaural differences and speech intelligibility with bilateral cochlear implants using clinical speech processors. Audiol Neurootol. 2005;10: 342–352.
44. Kühn-Inacker H Shehata-Dieler W Müller J Helms J. Bilateral cochlear implants: a way to optimize auditory perception abilities in deaf children? Int J Ped Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68: 1257–1266.
45. Lawson D Wilson B Zerbi M Finley C. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Fifth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project N01-DC-5-2103. Bethesda, Md: Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health; 1996.
46. Lawson D Zerbi M Wilson B. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. First Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project N01-DC-8-2105. Bethesda, Md: Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health; 1998.
47. Laback B Pok M Baumgartner W Deutsch W Schmid K. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope time differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors. Ear Hear. 2004;25: 488–500.
48. Laback B Majdak P Baumgartner WD. Fine structure and gating interuaral time differences in electrical and acoustical hearing: effect of stimulus duration. Paper presented at: Conference on Implantable Auditory Prosthesis; August 4, 2005; Pacific Grove, Calif.
49. Majdak P Laback B Baumgartner WD. Interaural time differences in fine structure and envelope in bilateral electrical and acoustical hearing. Paper presented at: Conference on Implantable Auditory Prosthesis; August 4, 2005; Pacific Grove, Calif.
50. von Ilberg C Kiefer J Tillein J et al., Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1999;61: 334–340.
51. Lehnhardt E. Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique. HNO. 1993;41: 356–359.
52. Kiefer J Gstoettner W Baumgartner W et al., Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124: 272–280.
53. Skarzynski H Lorens A Piotrowska A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9(4): CS20–CS24.
54. Skarzynski H Lorens A Piotrowska A Anderson I. Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol. In press.
55. Adunka O Unkelbach MC Hambeck M Gstöttner W Kiefer J. Cochlear implantation via the round window membrane minimizes trauma to cochlear structures: a histologically controlled study. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124: 1–6.
56. Roland PS Gstöttner W Adunka O. Method for hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery. Oper Tech Otolaryngol. 2005;16: 93–100.
57. Gstoettner W Kiefer J Baumgartner W Pok SM Peters S Adunka O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124: 348–352.
58. Adunka O Kiefer J Unkelbach MH Lehnert T Gstoettner W. Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation. Laryngoscope. 2004;114: 1237–1241.
59. Gstoettner W Helbig S Maier N Kiefer J Radeloff A Adunka O. Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: long-term preservation of acoustic hearing. Audiol Neurootol. In press.
60. Gstoettner W Van de Heyning P O'Connor AF Morera C Sainz M. Results from a multi-centre EAS clinical investigation. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156(suppl 119): 121.
61. Kiefer J Pok M Adunka O et al., Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurootol. 2005;10: 134–144.
62. Wilson B Wolfort R Lawson D Schatzer R. Additional perspectives on speech reception with combined electric and acoustic stimulation, speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project N01-DC-2-1002. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 2002.
63. Brockmeier SJ Vermeire K Grasmeder M et al., Music perception of different CI users and comparison to normal hearing subjects as assessed in the Mu.S.I.C. Test. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156(suppl 119): 102.
64. Helbig S Unkelbach M Maier N et al., Preliminary results with the new DUET in EAS users. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156(suppl 119): 126.
65. Garnham C Reetz G Jolly C Miller J Salt A Beal F. Drug delivery to the cochlea after implantation: consideration of the risk factors. Cochlear Implants International. 2005;6(suppl 1): 12–14.
66. Paasche G Bogel L Leinung M Lenarz Y Stover T. Substance distribution in a cochlea model using different pump rates for cochlear implant drug delivery electrode prototypes. Hear Res. 2006;212: 74–82.
67. Praetorius M Limberger A Muller M et al., A novel microperfusion system for the long-term local supply of drugs to the inner ear: implantation and function in the rat model. Audiol Neurootol. 2001;6: 250–258.
68. Salt A Ma Y. Quantification of solute entry into cochlear perilymph through the round window membrane. Hear Res. 2001;154: 88–97.
69. Prieskorn D Miller J. Technical report: chronic and acute intracochlear infusion in rodents. Hear Res. 2000;140: 212–215.
70. Johnson T Loeffler K Jolly CN Burne RA Antonelli PJ. Biofilm formation in cochlear implants with cochlear drug delivery channels. Wien Med Wochenshr. 2006;156(suppl 119): 86–87.