Cochlear implants: The hazards of unexpected success

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 184, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1343-1344

  Rubinstein, Jay T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOPHYSICS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; GOVERNMENT; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEARING AID; HUMAN; NOTE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 84865852657     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111743     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2009;13:1-330.
2. Geers AE, Strube MJ, Tobey EA, et al. Epilogue: factors contributing to long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in early childhood. Ear Hear 2011;32(Suppl 1):84-92.
3. Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH, et al. The effects of cochlear implantation on speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:446-53.
4. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, et al. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;20:445-52.
5. Gfeller K, Jiang D, Oleson JJ, et al. Temporal stability of music perception and appraisal scores of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21:28-34.
6. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Karsten S, et al. Impact of hair cell preservation in cochlear implantation: combined electric and acoustic hearing. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1227-32.
7. Wang W, Zhou N, Xu L. Musical pitch and lexical tone perception with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2011;50:270-8.
8. Basura GJ, Eapen R, Buchman CA. Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts, indications, and results. Laryngoscope 2009;119:2395-401.
9. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2417-26.
10. Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, et al. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:39-47.
11. Yoon YS, Li Y, Kang HY, et al. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2011 50:554-65.
12. Van de Heyning P, Vermeire K, Diebl M, et al. Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:645-52.
13. Rubinstein JT. How cochlear implants encode speech. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;12:444-8.
14. Moore BC. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normalhearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2008; 9:399-406.
15. Wise AK, Fallon JB, Neil AJ, et al. Combining cell-based therapies and neural prostheses to promote neural survival. Neurotherapeutics 2011;8:774-87