Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 381-393

  Plant, Kerrie ^a,b,e   Holden, Laura ^c   Skinner, Margo ^c   Arcaroli, Jennifer ^d   Whitford, Lesley ^a,b   Law, Mary Ann ^a,b   Nel, Esti ^b  

^a School of Earth and Environmental Sciences   (Australia)

^b Surgical Implants   (Australia)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Department of Otolaryngology   (United States)

^e NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SIGNAL DETECTION; SOUND INTENSITY; SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY; TINNITUS; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 34248199374     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31804793ac     Document Type: Article

References (25)

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. Buchner, A., Frohne-Buchner, C., Battmer, R. D., Lenarz, T. (2004). Two years of experience using stimulation rates between 800 and 5000 pps with the clarion CII implant. Elsevier International Congress Series, 1273, 48-51.
3. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Cruz, R. J. (2005). Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiology and Neurotology, 10, 169-184.
4. Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E. (2002). Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear & Hearing, 23, 463-476.
5. Kiefer, J., von Ilberg, C., Hubner-Egner, J., Rupprecht, V., Knecht, R. (2000). Optimized speech understanding with the Continuous Interleaved Sampling speech coding strategy in patient with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 109, 1009-1020.
6. Kreft, H. A., Donaldson, G. S., Nelson, D. A. (2004). Effects of pulse rate on threshold and dynamic range in Clarion cochlear-implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1885-1888.
7. Loizou, P. C., Poroy, O., Dorman, M. (2000). The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 790-808.
8. Nie, K., Barco, A., Zeng, F. G. (2006). Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 27, 208-217.
9. Peterson, G., Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 62-70.
10. Plant, K., Law, M., Whitford, L., Knight, M., Tari, S., Leigh, J., Pedley, K., Nel, E. (2005). Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array. Ear and Hearing, 26, 651-668.
11. Psarros, C. E., Plant, K. L., Lee, K., Decker, J. A., Whitford, L. A., Cowan, R. S. C. (2002). Conversion from the SPEAK to the ACE strategy in children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception and speech production outcomes. Ear & Hearing, 18S-27S.
12. Seligman, P. M., McDermott, H. J. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 104(Suppl 166), 172-175.
13. Shannon, R. V. (1985). Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hearing Research, 40, 197-204.
14. Skinner, M. W., Arndt, P. L., Staller, S. J. (2002a). Nucleus 24 Advanced Encoder/Conversion study: performance versus preference. Ear and Hearing, 23, 2S-17S.
15. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E. (1995). Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the Nucleus cochlear implant system. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 677-689.
16. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. F. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on electrical thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11, 203-213.
17. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., Psarros, C., Holden, T. A. (2002). Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear & Hearing, 23, 207-223.
18. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Fourakis, M. S., Hawks, J. W., Holden, T., Arcaroli, J., Hyde, M. (2006). Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17, 350-366.
19. 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 and Hearing, 21, 608-624.
20. Walker, G., Dillon, H., Byrne, D. (1984). Sound field-audiometry: recommended stimuli and procedures. Ear & Hearing, 5, 13-21.
21. Wilson, B. S., Lawson, D. T., Finley, C. C., Wolford, R. D. (1995). New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. American Journal of Otology, 16, 669-675.
22. Arndt, P. L., Staller, S. J., Arcaroli, J., Hines, A., Ebinger, K. (1999). Within subject comparison of advanced coding strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Corporation.
23. Wilson, B. S., Lawson D. T., Zerbi, M., Finley, C. C. (1992). Speech processors for auditory prostheses, Twelfth Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Project N01-DC-9-2401. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Neural Prosthesis Program.
24. Lawson, D. T., Wilson, B. S., Zerbi, M., Finley, C. C. (1996). Speech processors for auditory prostheses, Third Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project N01-DC-5-2103. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Neural Prosthesis Program.
25. Huang, C. Q., Stathopoulos, D., Tykocinski, M., Cowan, R. (2005). Histopathological effects of electrical stimulation on the auditory nerve using very high rates. Proceedings of the 25th Australian Neuroscience Society, 16, 96.