Literature DB >> 16315446

A psychophysical forward masking comparison of longitudinal spread of neural excitation in the Contour and straight Nucleus electrode arrays.

Lawrence T Cohen1, Thomas Lenarz, Rolf-Dieter Battmer, Cornelia Bender von Saebelkampf, Peter A Busby, Robert S C Cowan.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare the widths of forward masking profiles in subjects implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour or straight electrode array. The Contour array is typically positioned closer to the modiolus than the straight array. Subjects were fourteen postlingually hearing-impaired adults with severe-profound hearing loss, seven used the Contour array and seven used the straight array. Forward masking profiles were measured at three positions along the array (apical, mid, and basal) using maskers at the 15% loudness level. It was hypothesized that masking profile widths would be more sensitive to differences in distance from the neural structures using low-level maskers. Masking width was calculated at the 50% point of the masking peak amplitude. There were no significant differences in masking widths between Contour and straight array subject groups. Current levels for hearing thresholds and maximum comfortable listening levels were significantly lower for the Contour array subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16315446     DOI: 10.1080/14992020500258743

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  9 in total

1.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 2.  Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 3.  Nerve maintenance and regeneration in the damaged cochlea.

Authors:  Seiji B Shibata; Cameron L Budenz; Sara A Bowling; Bryan E Pfingst; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  The use of neurotrophin therapy in the inner ear to augment cochlear implantation outcomes.

Authors:  Cameron L Budenz; Bryan E Pfingst; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.064

6.  Visualization of spiral ganglion neurites within the scala tympani with a cochlear implant in situ.

Authors:  Jennifer A Chikar; Shelley A Batts; Bryan E Pfingst; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Responsiveness of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; Bahar S Shahsavarani; Tyler C McFayden; Haibo Wang; Katherine E Gill; Lei Xu; Xiuhua Chao; Jianfen Luo; Ruijie Wang; Nancy He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Clinical evaluation of cochlear implant sound coding taking into account conjectural masking functions, MP3000™.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Andy Beynon; Witold Szyfter; Kazimierz Niemczyk; Ulrich Hoppe; Matthias Hey; Jan Brokx; Julie Eyles; Paul Van de Heyning; Gaetano Paludetti; Andrzej Zarowski; Nicola Quaranta; Thomas Wesarg; Joost Festen; Heidi Olze; Ingeborg Dhooge; Joachim Müller-Deile; Angel Ramos; Stephane Roman; Jean-Pierre Piron; Domenico Cuda; Sandro Burdo; Wilko Grolman; Samantha Roux Vaillard; Alicia Huarte; Bruno Frachet; Constantine Morera; Luis Garcia-Ibáñez; Daniel Abels; Martin Walger; Jochen Müller-Mazotta; Carlo Antonio Leone; Bernard Meyer; Norbert Dillier; Thomas Steffens; André Gentine; Manuela Mazzoli; Gerben Rypkema; Matthijs Killian; Guido Smoorenburg
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2011-11

9.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).

Authors:  Nicolas Guevara; Michel Hoen; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.