Literature DB >> 16403611

Psychophysical measures in patients fitted with Contour and straight Nucleus electrode arrays.

Lawrence T Cohen1, Elaine Saunders, Michelle R Knight, Robert S C Cowan.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the psychophysical performance of patients using the Nucleus Contour electrode array with that of patients using the straight banded-electrode array. In particular, we wished to consider how psychophysical parameters would differ for an electrode array positioned closer to the modiolus, and how this might influence both patient benefits and the design of speech processing strategies. Nine subjects participated in the study: four used the Nucleus straight array and five used the Nucleus Contour electrode array. Radiographic analyses found that the Contour array lay closer to the modiolus, was more deeply inserted and spanned a larger fractional length of the basilar membrane than the straight banded-electrode array. The results were analysed in terms of array type and of the position of the individual electrode band, both distance from the modiolus and longitudinal placement. Mean threshold was lower for the Contour array but maximum comfortable level was similar. Whereas threshold varied significantly with distance of electrode band from the modiolus, maximum comfortable level did not. Pitch varied fairly regularly with longitudinal position of the stimulated electrode, with the exception of one Contour subject. The forward masking profiles, using moderately loud maskers, were narrower for the Contour array, indicative of more localized neural excitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16403611     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  18 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.  Cochlear implant users' spectral ripple resolution.

Authors:  Eun Kyung Jeon; Christopher W Turner; Sue A Karsten; Belinda A Henry; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Evaluation of a new slim lateral wall electrode for cochlear implantation: an imaging study in human temporal bones.

Authors:  Aarno Dietz; Matti Iso-Mustajärvi; Sini Sipari; Jyrki Tervaniemi; Dzemal Gazibegovic
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics.

Authors:  Ben H Bonham; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode Arrays.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; Robert J Yawn; Ashley M Nassiri; Robert T Dwyer; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Quentin Mesnildrey; Frédéric Venail; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-04

8.  The Relationship Between Intensity Coding and Binaural Sensitivity in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 9.  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

10.  Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-22       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.