Literature DB >> 18616994

Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Blake S Wilson1, Michael F Dorman.   

Abstract

The aims of this paper are to (i) provide a brief history of cochlear implants; (ii) present a status report on the current state of implant engineering and the levels of speech understanding enabled by that engineering; (iii) describe limitations of current signal processing strategies; and (iv) suggest new directions for research. With current technology the "average" implant patient, when listening to predictable conversations in quiet, is able to communicate with relative ease. However, in an environment typical of a workplace the average patient has a great deal of difficulty. Patients who are "above average" in terms of speech understanding, can achieve 100% correct scores on the most difficult tests of speech understanding in quiet but also have significant difficulty when signals are presented in noise. The major factors in these outcomes appear to be (i) a loss of low-frequency, fine structure information possibly due to the envelope extraction algorithms common to cochlear implant signal processing; (ii) a limitation in the number of effective channels of stimulation due to overlap in electric fields from electrodes; and (iii) central processing deficits, especially for patients with poor speech understanding. Two recent developments, bilateral implants and combined electric and acoustic stimulation, have promise to remediate some of the difficulties experienced by patients in noise and to reinstate low-frequency fine structure information. If other possibilities are realized, e.g., electrodes that emit drugs to inhibit cell death following trauma and to induce the growth of neurites toward electrodes, then the future is very bright indeed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18616994      PMCID: PMC3707130          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005

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


  135 in total

1.  Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Dual-electrode pitch discrimination with sequential interleaved stimulation by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Combined electroacoustic stimulation in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Chris J James; Bernard Fraysse; Olivier Deguine; Thomas Lenarz; Deborah Mawman; Angel Ramos; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Sterkers
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing.

Authors:  Kate E Gfeller; Carol Olszewski; Christopher Turner; Bruce Gantz; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

Review 5.  Cochlear implants.

Authors: 
Journal:  Natl Inst Health Consens Dev Conf Consens Statement       Date:  1988-05-04

6.  Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of long-term hearing preservation.

Authors:  Wolfgang K Gstoettner; Silke Helbig; Nicola Maier; Jan Kiefer; Andreas Radeloff; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; J C Farmer; D T Lawson; B A Weber; R D Wolford; P D Kenan; M W White; M M Merzenich; R A Schindler
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  B Townshend; N Cotter; D Van Compernolle; R L White
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance.

Authors:  Jose N Fayad; Fred H Linthicum
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.325

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

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen; Elaine Saunders; Michelle R Knight; Robert S C Cowan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-01-05       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  188 in total

1.  Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin's Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Deborah J Colesa; Sheena Hembrador; Stephen Y Kang; John C Middlebrooks; Yehoash Raphael; Gina L Su
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The effect of cochlear-implant-mediated electrical stimulation on spiral ganglion cells in congenitally deaf white cats.

Authors:  Iris Chen; Charles J Limb; David K Ryugo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-09-04

Review 5.  Flexible and stretchable micro-electrodes for in vitro and in vivo neural interfaces.

Authors:  Stéphanie P Lacour; Samia Benmerah; Edward Tarte; James FitzGerald; Jordi Serra; Stephen McMahon; James Fawcett; Oliver Graudejus; Zhe Yu; Barclay Morrison
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  Auditory sensitivity may require dynamically unstable spike generators: evidence from a model of electrical stimulation.

Authors:  David E O'Gorman; H Steven Colburn; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Using temporal modulation sensitivity to select stimulation sites for processor MAPs in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 1.854

Review 8.  Neuromodulation for brain disorders: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Matthew D Johnson; Hubert H Lim; Theoden I Netoff; Allison T Connolly; Nessa Johnson; Abhrajeet Roy; Abbey Holt; Kelvin O Lim; James R Carey; Jerrold L Vitek; Bin He
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 4.538

9.  Performance variability on perceptual discrimination tasks in profoundly deaf adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Nathaniel R Peterson; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk; Xin Yang; Jason Parton
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.288

10.  Reliability and Repeatability of the Speech Cue Profile.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun; Paul Reinhart
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.