Literature DB >> 8892567

Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation.

T A Zwolan1, P R Kileny, C Ashbaugh, S A Telian.   

Abstract

A within-subjects comparison of monopolar versus bipolar stimulation was performed using a modified version of the Nucleus mini-22 cochlear implant, the Nucleus "20 + 2" implant. Six subjects underwent implantation with this device, which is identical to the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant with the addition of two extracochlear indifferent electrodes. These electrodes provide two monopolar modes of stimulation in addition to the standard bipolar modes used with the Nucleus 22 device. One of the indifferent electrodes is a ball placed under the temporalis muscle (MP1), whereas the second electrode is mounted on the lateral aspect of the receiver-stimulator (MP2). After a pre-experimental phase, subjects used each of three stimulation modes (BP + 1, MP1, and MP2) for a total of 4 weeks each. Variables tested with each mode included electric thresholds, comfort levels, dynamic ranges, and speech recognition. Both the MP1 and MP2 modes of stimulation required significantly less current than the bipolar mode (BP + 1) to reach threshold and comfort level. Analysis of dynamic range data also indicated a significant stimulation mode effect. However, stimulation in the various modes did not significantly affect speech recognition scores, although two subjects demonstrated significantly improved speech recognition scores when programmed in a monopolar mode.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8892567

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Otol        ISSN: 0192-9763


  13 in total

1.  Multichannel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05-27

2.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

Review 3.  The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system.

Authors:  James F Patrick; Peter A Busby; Peter J Gibson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-12

4.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mohamed Bingabr; Blas Espinoza-Varas; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  The perception of emotion and focus prosody with varying acoustic cues in cochlear implant simulations with varying filter slopes.

Authors:  Daan J van de Velde; Niels O Schiller; Vincent J van Heuven; Claartje C Levelt; Joost van Ginkel; Mieke Beers; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.

Authors:  Shefin S George; Mohit N Shivdasani; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

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.