Objective measurements of auditory nerve recovery function in nucleus CI 24 implantees in relation to subjective preference of stimulation rate

Acta Oto-Laryngologica

Volumn 124, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 679-683

  Shpak, Thalma ^a   Berlin, Mira ^b   Luntz, Michal ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b Research and Technology Labs   (Israel)

Author keywords

Auditory nerve recovery time; Auditory evoked compound action potentials; Cochlear implant; Neural response telemetry; Objective fitting of cochlear implant; Refractory recovery function; Speech coding strategies

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NERVE POTENTIAL; NERVE STIMULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TELEMETRY; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 4143096003     PISSN: 00016489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00016480310002168     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Wilson B, Finley C, Lawson D, Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997; 18(6 Suppl): S30-4.
2. Brill S, Gstottner W, Helms J, et al. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 1997; 18(6 Suppl): S104-6.
3. Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108: 790-802.
4. Collins LM, Miller RL, Ferguson WD. On the relationship between noise and speech perception in cochlear implant subjects: a theoretical and psychophysical study. Ninth digital signal processing workshop, October 2000. Hunt, Texas, USA.
5. Lai WK. An NRT cookbook: guidelines for making NRT measurements. Basle, Switzerland: Cochlear AG; 1999.
6. Holden LK, Skinner MW, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 463-76.
7. Vandaly AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 608-24.
8. Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH. Electrode discrimination and speech perception in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 3673-85.
9. Hall RD. Estimation of survival spiral ganglion cells in the deaf rat using the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response. Hear Res 1990; 49: 155-68.
10. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Borland J, Bertschy MR. Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulation electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical results. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 453-67.
11. Kiefer J, Hohl S, Sturzebecher E, Pfennigdorff T, Gstoettner W. 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 2001; 40: 32-42.
12. Shallop JK, Facer GW, Peterson A. Neural response telemetry with the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: 1755-9.
13. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 151-63.
14. Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al. Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 45-59.
15. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998; 19: 320-7.
16. Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1998; 118: 313-26.