Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients

Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 194-200

  Vargas, Jose Luis ^a   Sainz, Manuel ^a,b   Roldan, Cristina ^a,b   Alvarez, Isaac ^b   de la Torre, Angel ^b  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO SAN CECILIO   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Bioelectrical impedance; Cochlear implant; Electrical stimulation; Prosthesis adjustment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870031167     PISSN: 19768710     EISSN: 20050720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2012.5.4.194     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature. 1991 Jul;352(6332):236-8.
2. Loizou PC. Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Signal Process Mag. 1998 Sep;15(5):101-30.
3. Dawson PW, Skok M, Clark GM. The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 1997 Apr;18(2):156-65.
4. Battmer RD. Fitting in the real world: all the practical questions and problems. In: The 5th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation; 2000 Jun 4-7; Antwerp, Belgium.
5. Hodges AV, Balkany TJ, Ruth RA, Lambert PR, Dolan-Ash S, Schloffman JJ. Electrical middle ear muscle reflex: use in cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Sep;117(3 Pt 1):255-61.
6. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Lopez SM, Abbas PJ. Relationship between EABR thresholds and levels used to program the CLARION speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1999 Apr;177:50-7.
7. Stephan K, Welzl-Muller K. Post-operative stapedius reflex tests with simultaneous loudness scaling in patients supplied with cochlear implants. Audiology. 2000 Jan-Feb;39(1):13-8.
8. Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT, Kong Y, Li YX, Liu S, et al. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005 Jul;125(7):732-5.
9. King JE, Polak M, Hodges AV, Payne S, Telischi FF. Use of neural response telemetry measures to objectively set the comfort levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006 Jun;17(6):413-31.
10. Holstad BA, Sonneveldt VG, Fears BT, Davidson LS, Aaron RJ, Richter M, et al. Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2009 Feb;30(1):115-27.
11. Alvarez I, de la Torre A, Sainz M, Roldan C, Schoesser H, Spitzer P. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear. 2010 Feb;31(1):134-45.
12. Shallop JK, Ash KR. Relationships among comfort levels determined by cochlear implant patient's self-programming, audiologist's programming, and electrical stapedius reflex thresholds. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995 Sep;166:175-6.
13. Madell J, Ozdamar S, Sislian N, Hoffman R. Using speech perception errors to modify programming. In: The 8th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children; 2001 Feb 28-Mar 3; Los Angeles, CA, USA.
14. Sainz M, de la Torre A. Perceptual thresholds of the electrical impulses in cochlear implanted patients. In: The 8th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children; 2001 Feb 28-Mar 3; Los Angeles, CA, USA.
15. Schmidt M, Griesser A. Long-term stability of fitting parameters with the COMBI 40. Am J Otol. 1997 Nov;18(6 Suppl):S109-10.
16. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Kelsay DM, Teagle HF, et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2001 Dec;22(6):471-86.
17. Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Kronenberg J, Hildesheimer M. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003 Aug;67(8):873-80.
18. 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 Apr;21(2):151-63.
19. Franck KH, Norton SJ. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's CI24M device. Ear Hear. 2001 Aug;22(4):289-99.
20. Welch BL. The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika. 1938 Feb;29(3-4):350-62.