Literature DB >> 15467287

Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition.

Bryan E Pfingst1, Li Xu, Catherine S Thompson.   

Abstract

Functional implications of across-site variation in detection thresholds in subjects with cochlear implants were evaluated by comparing thresholds to speech recognition performance. Detection thresholds for bipolar (BP) and monopolar (MP) stimulation of all available stimulation sites were assessed in 21 subjects with Nucleus CI24M and CI24R(CS) implants. We found significant negative correlations between speech recognition and within-subject across-site threshold variance for both BP and MP stimulation, but no significant correlation of speech recognition with mean threshold levels. These results suggest that across-site variance of detection thresholds could provide a useful early indication of the prognosis for speech recognition and might serve as an indicator for specific therapeutic approaches in individual subjects. Copyright (c) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15467287      PMCID: PMC1450110          DOI: 10.1159/000081283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  16 in total

1.  Consonant recordings for speech testing.

Authors:  R V Shannon; A Jensvold; M Padilla; M E Robert; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Patti L Arndt; Steven J Staller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: preliminary findings.

Authors:  J F Knutson; J V Hinrichs; R S Tyler; B J Gantz; H A Schartz; G Woodworth
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 1.547

4.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  T A Zwolan; L M Collins; G H Wakefield
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants.

Authors:  P Blamey; P Arndt; F Bergeron; G Bredberg; J Brimacombe; G Facer; J Larky; B Lindström; J Nedzelski; A Peterson; D Shipp; S Staller; L Whitford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings.

Authors:  C van den Honert; P H Stypulkowski
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant.

Authors:  P R Kileny; S Zimmerman-Phillips; J L Kemink; S P Schmaltz
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 1.547

Review 9.  A model of electrical excitation of the mammalian auditory-nerve neuron.

Authors:  J Colombo; C W Parkins
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1987-12-31       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

2.  Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Shu-Chen Peng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Gail S Donaldson; Heather Kreft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.