HYPOTHESIS: An objective cochlear framework, for evaluation of the cochlear anatomy and description of the position of an implanted cochlear implant electrode, would allow the direct comparison of measures performed within the various subdisciplines involved in cochlear implant research. BACKGROUND: Research on the human cochlear anatomy in relation to tonotopy and cochlear implantation is conducted by specialists from numerous disciplines such as histologists, surgeons, physicists, engineers, audiologists, and radiologists. To allow accurate comparisons between and combinations of previous and forthcoming scientific and clinical studies, cochlear structures and electrode positions must be specified in a consistent manner. METHODS: Researchers with backgrounds in the various fields of inner ear research as well as representatives of the different manufacturers of cochlear implants (Advanced Bionics Corp., Med-El, Cochlear Corp.) were involved in consensus meetings held in Dallas, March 2005, and Asilomar, August 2005. Existing coordinate systems were evaluated, and requisites for an objective cochlear framework were discussed. RESULTS: The consensus panel agreed upon a 3-dimensional, cylindrical coordinate system of the cochlea using the "Cochlear View" as a basis and choosing a z axis through the modiolus. The zero reference angle was chosen at the center of the round window, which has a close relationship to the basal end of the Organ of Corti. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on an objective cochlear framework, allowing the outcomes of studies from different fields of research to be compared directly.
HYPOTHESIS: An objective cochlear framework, for evaluation of the cochlear anatomy and description of the position of an implanted cochlear implant electrode, would allow the direct comparison of measures performed within the various subdisciplines involved in cochlear implant research. BACKGROUND: Research on the human cochlear anatomy in relation to tonotopy and cochlear implantation is conducted by specialists from numerous disciplines such as histologists, surgeons, physicists, engineers, audiologists, and radiologists. To allow accurate comparisons between and combinations of previous and forthcoming scientific and clinical studies, cochlear structures and electrode positions must be specified in a consistent manner. METHODS: Researchers with backgrounds in the various fields of inner ear research as well as representatives of the different manufacturers of cochlear implants (Advanced Bionics Corp., Med-El, Cochlear Corp.) were involved in consensus meetings held in Dallas, March 2005, and Asilomar, August 2005. Existing coordinate systems were evaluated, and requisites for an objective cochlear framework were discussed. RESULTS: The consensus panel agreed upon a 3-dimensional, cylindrical coordinate system of the cochlea using the "Cochlear View" as a basis and choosing a z axis through the modiolus. The zero reference angle was chosen at the center of the round window, which has a close relationship to the basal end of the Organ of Corti. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on an objective cochlear framework, allowing the outcomes of studies from different fields of research to be compared directly.
Authors: Margaret W Skinner; Darlene R Ketten; Laura K Holden; Gary W Harding; Peter G Smith; George A Gates; J Gail Neely; G Robert Kletzker; Barry Brunsden; Barbara Blocker Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2002-02-27
Authors: Alejandro Rivas; Ahmet Cakir; Jacob B Hunter; Robert F Labadie; M Geraldine Zuniga; George B Wanna; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Jorien Snel-Bongers; Jeroen J Briaire; Erika H van der Veen; Randy K Kalkman; Johan H M Frijns Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2013-05-22
Authors: H Martin Kjer; Jens Fagertun; Wilhelm Wimmer; Nicolas Gerber; Sergio Vera; Livia Barazzetti; Nerea Mangado; Mario Ceresa; Gemma Piella; Thomas Stark; Martin Stauber; Mauricio Reyes; Stefan Weber; Marco Caversaccio; Miguel Ángel González Ballester; Rasmus R Paulsen Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Sara Gallant; David R Friedmann; Mari Hagiwara; J Thomas Roland; Mario A Svirsky; Daniel Jethanamest Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Kimerly A Powell; Gregory J Wiet; Brad Hittle; Grace I Oswald; Jason P Keith; Don Stredney; Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Brendan P O'Connell; Jacob B Hunter; René H Gifford; Alejandro Rivas; David S Haynes; Jack H Noble; George B Wanna Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.311