References
- Wilson B, Finley C, Lawson D, Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997; 18(6 Suppl): S30–4.
- Brill S, Gstottner W, Helms J, et al. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 1997; 18(6 Suppl): S104–6.
- Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108: 790–802.
- Collins LM, Miller RL, Ferguson WD. On the relation-ship between noise and speech perception in cochlear implant subjects: a theoretical and psychophysical study. Ninth digital signal processing workshop, October 2000. Hunt, Texas, USA.
- Lai WK. An NRT cookbook: guidelines for making NRT measurements. Basle, Switzerland: Cochlear AG; 1999.
- Holden LK, Skinner MW, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 463–76.
- Vandaly AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 608–24.
- Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH. Electrode discrimination and speech perception in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 3673–85.
- Hall RD. Estimation of survival spiral ganglion cells in the deaf rat using the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response. Hear Res 1990; 49: 155–68.
- Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Borland J, Bertschy MR. Elec-trically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimula-tion electrode configurations and comparison to psy-chophysical results. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 453–67.
- Kiefer J, Hohl S, Sturzebecher E, Pfennigdorff T, Gstoettner W. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the Nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 2001; 40: 32–42.
- Shallop JK, Facer GW, Peterson A. Neural response telemetry with the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: 1755–9.
- Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 151–63.
- Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al. Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 45–59.
- Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998; 19: 320–7.
- Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysi-cal percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1998; 118: 313–26.