Literature DB >> 25456089

Deep electrode insertion and sound coding in cochlear implants.

Ingeborg Hochmair1, Erwin Hochmair2, Peter Nopp3, Melissa Waller3, Claude Jolly3.   

Abstract

Present-day cochlear implants demonstrate remarkable speech understanding performance despite the use of non-optimized coding strategies concerning the transmission of tonal information. Most systems rely on place pitch information despite possibly large deviations from correct tonotopic placement of stimulation sites. Low frequency information is limited as well because of the constant pulse rate stimulation generally used and, being even more restrictive, of the limited insertion depth of the electrodes. This results in a compromised perception of music and tonal languages. Newly available flexible long straight electrodes permit deep insertion reaching the apical region with little or no insertion trauma. This article discusses the potential benefits of deep insertion which are obtained using pitch-locked temporal stimulation patterns. Besides the access to low frequency information, further advantages of deeply inserted long electrodes are the possibility to better approximate the correct tonotopic location of contacts, the coverage of a wider range of cochlear locations, and the somewhat reduced channel interaction due to the wider contact separation for a given number of channels. A newly developed set of strategies has been shown to improve speech understanding in noise and to enhance sound quality by providing a more "natural" impression, which especially becomes obvious when listening to music. The benefits of deep insertion should not, however, be compromised by structural damage during insertion. The small cross section and the high flexibility of the new electrodes can help to ensure less traumatic insertions as demonstrated by patients' hearing preservation rate. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled <Lasker Award>.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25456089     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.10.006

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


  26 in total

1.  CT-scan contouring technique allows for direct and reliable measurements of the cochlear duct length: implication in cochlear implantation with straight electrode-arrays.

Authors:  Thi Hau Vu; Chiara Perazzini; Mathilde Puechmaille; Aurélie Bachy; Aurélien Mulliez; Louis Boyer; Thierry Mom; Jean Gabrillargues
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  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

3.  Benefits of Cochlear Implantation in Childhood Unilateral Hearing Loss (CUHL Trial).

Authors:  Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon; Lisa R Park
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 2.970

4.  Advantages of Pulse Rate Compared to Modulation Frequency for Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Susan R S Bissmeyer; Andres Camarena
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-03

5.  Electrode Location and Angular Insertion Depth Are Predictors of Audiologic Outcomes in Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Ahmet Cakir; Jacob B Hunter; David O Francis; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; Geraldine Zuniga; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; George B Wanna
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 6.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

7.  Morphometric linear and angular measurements of the human cochlea in implant patients using 3-dimensional reconstruction.

Authors:  Arman Danielian; Gail Ishiyama; Ivan A Lopez; Akira Ishiyama
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Andres Camarena; Susan R S Bissmeyer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.672

9.  Spatial Release From Masking in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Single-Sided Deafness.

Authors:  Lisa R Park; Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 1.636

10.  An automated A-value measurement tool for accurate cochlear duct length estimation.

Authors:  John E Iyaniwura; Mai Elfarnawany; Hanif M Ladak; Sumit K Agrawal
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-01-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.