Literature DB >> 12704085

Cochlear implants: some likely next steps.

Blake S Wilson1, Dewey T Lawson, Joachim M Muller, Richard S Tyler, Jan Kiefer.   

Abstract

The history of cochlear implants is marked by large improvements in performance, especially over the past two decades and especially due to the development of ever-better processing strategies. Although the progress to date has been substantial, present devices still do not restore normal speech reception, even for top performers and particularly for listening to speech in competition with noise or other talkers. In addition, a wide range of outcomes persists, with some patients receiving little benefit using the same devices that support high levels of speech reception for others. The purpose of this review is to describe some likely possibilities for further improvement, including (a) combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system for patients with significant residual hearing, (b) use of bilateral implants, (c) a closer replication with implants of the processing steps in the normal cochlea, and (d) applications of knowledge about factors that are correlated with outcomes to help patients presently at the low end of the performance scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12704085     DOI: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.5.040202.121645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng        ISSN: 1523-9829            Impact factor:   9.590


  33 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  [Cochlear implantation with preservation of residual deep frequency hearing].

Authors:  J Müller; J Helms
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  [Experiments on prosody perception with cochlear implants].

Authors:  H Meister; D Tepeli; P Wagner; W Hess; M Walger; H von Wedel; R Lang-Roth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Qing Tang; Raul Benítez; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 5.379

5.  Sensitivity to interaural time differences in the inferior colliculus with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Zachary M Smith; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Neural and behavioral sensitivity to interaural time differences using amplitude modulated tones with mismatched carrier frequencies.

Authors:  Deidra A Blanks; Jason M Roberts; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-07-27

7.  Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Corey Stoelb; Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Sensitivity to interaural time difference with bilateral cochlear implants: Development over time and effect of interaural electrode spacing.

Authors:  Becky B Poon; Donald K Eddington; Victor Noel; H Steven Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Christopher A Brown
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

Review 10.  Trends in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.