Literature DB >> 25159273

The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit.

Graeme M Clark1.   

Abstract

This multi-disciplinary research showed sound could be coded by electrical stimulation of the cochlea and peripheral auditory nervous system. But the temporal coding of frequency as seen in the experimental animal, was inadequate for the important speech frequencies. The data indicated the limitation was due in particular to deterministic firing of neurons and failure to reproduce the normal fine temporo-spatial pattern of neural responses seen with sound. However, the data also showed the need for the place coding of frequency, and this meant multi-electrodes inserted into the cochlea. Nevertheless, before this was evaluated on people we undertook biological safety studies to determine the effects of surgical trauma and electrical stimuli, and how to prevent infection. Then our research demonstrated place of stimulation had timbre and was perceived as vowels. This led to our discovery in 1978 of the formant-extraction speech code that first enabled severely-profoundly deaf people to understand running speech. This result in people who had hearing before becoming severely deaf was an outcome not previously considered possible. In 1985 it was the first multi-channel implant to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It was also the fore runner of our advanced formant and fixed filter strategies When these codes were used from 1985 for those born deaf or deafened early in life we discovered there was a critical period when brain plasticity would allow speech perception and language to be developed near- normally, and this required in particular the acquisition of place coding. In 1990 this led to the first cochlear implant to be approved by the FDA for use in children. Finally, we achieved binaural hearing in 1989 with bilateral cochlear implants, followed by bimodal speech processing in 1990 with a hearing aid in one ear and implant in the other. The above research has been developed industrially, with for example 250,000 people worldwide receiving the Cochlear device in 2013, and as of December 2012 the NIH estimated that approximately 324,200 people worldwide had received this and other implants (NIH Publication No. 11-4798). This article is part of a Special Issue entitled <Lasker Award>.
Copyright © 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25159273     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.08.002

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


  16 in total

1.  Effect of shorter pulse duration in cochlear neural activation with an 810-nm near-infrared laser.

Authors:  Jingxuan Wang; Lan Tian; Jianren Lu; Ming Xia; Ying Wei
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 3.161

2.  Cochlear Implant in Prelingually Deaf Children: Our Experience.

Authors:  Vikram Kulkarni; Shivkumar Raghuwanshi; Ajit Kumar; Gaurav Batni
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-06-21

Review 3.  Structural neuroimaging of the altered brain stemming from pediatric and adolescent hearing loss-Scientific and clinical challenges.

Authors:  J Tilak Ratnanather
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med       Date:  2019-12-04

4.  Speech audiometry and data logging in CI patients : Implications for adequate test levels.

Authors:  M Hey; T Hocke; P Ambrosch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Effect on Sound Energy Transfer Within the Cochlea During Acoustic Stimulation.

Authors:  Nathaniel T Greene; Jameson K Mattingly; Herman A Jenkins; Daniel J Tollin; James R Easter; Stephen P Cass
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  An engineered three-dimensional stem cell niche in the inner ear by applying a nanofibrillar cellulose hydrogel with a sustained-release neurotrophic factor delivery system.

Authors:  Hsiang-Tsun Chang; Rachel A Heuer; Andrew M Oleksijew; Kyle S Coots; Christian B Roque; Kevin T Nella; Tammy L McGuire; Akihiro J Matsuoka
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2020-03-07       Impact factor: 8.947

7.  Cortical Activation Patterns Correlate with Speech Understanding After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Cristen Olds; Luca Pollonini; Homer Abaya; Jannine Larky; Megan Loy; Heather Bortfeld; Michael S Beauchamp; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  [Speech audiometry and data logging in CI patients : Implications for adequate test levels. German version].

Authors:  M Hey; T Hocke; P Ambrosch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 9.  Hair Cell Transduction, Tuning, and Synaptic Transmission in the Mammalian Cochlea.

Authors:  Robert Fettiplace
Journal:  Compr Physiol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 8.915

10.  Qualitative assessment of patients' attitudes and expectations toward BCIs and implications for future technology development.

Authors:  Silke Schicktanz; Till Amelung; Jochem W Rieger
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.