Electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) with the Naída CI Q90 sound processor in experienced cochlear implant users

References

• Amoodi, H.A., Mick, P.T., Shipp, D.B., Friesen, L.M., Nedzelski, J.M., Chen, J.M. et al. 2012. Results with cochlear implantation in adults with speech recognition scores exceeding current criteria. Otology & Neurotolology, 33(1): 6–12. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318239e5a1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, U., Mocka, M. 2017. Einfluss des Überlappungsbereichs zwischen akustischer und elektrischer stimulation [Impact of the overlap region between acoustic and electric stimulation]. Laryngo-rhino-otologie, 96(6): 361–373. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-117639
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalupper, J., Agrawal, S., Fredelake, S., Spahr, T. (2013, July). Rationale and implementation of a bimodal fitting formula. Poster session presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Lake Tahoe, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y., Incerti, P., Plant, K. 2015. Electric-acoustic stimulation: For whom, in which ear, and how. Cochlear Implants International, 16(Suppl.): S12–S15. doi: 10.1179/1467010014Z.000000000225
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching, T.Y., van Wanrooy, E., Dillon, H. 2007. Binaural-Bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends in Amplification, 11(3): 161–192. doi: 10.1177/1084713807304357
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon, M.T., Buss, E., Pillsbury, H.C., Adunka, O.F., Buchman, C.A., Adunka, M.C. 2014. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 25(2): 133–140. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.25.2.2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn, C.C., Perreau, A., Gantz, B., Tyler, R.S. 2010. Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(1): 44–51. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraysse, B., Macias, A.R., Sterkers, O., Burdo, S., Ramsden, R., Deguine, O., et al. 2006. Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant. Otology and Neurotology, 27(5): 624–633. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000226289.04048.0f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, B.J., Hansen, M.R., Turner, C.W., Oleson, J.J., Reiss, L.A., Parkinson, A.J. 2009. Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results. Audiology and Neurotology, 14: 32–38. doi: 10.1159/000206493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, R.H., Dorman, M.F., Brown, C.A. 2010. Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 76: 51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, R.H., Dorman, M.F., Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Driscoll, C.L., et al. 2013. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear and Hearing, 34(4): 413–425. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827e8163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gstoettner, W.K., van de Heyning, P., O’Connor, A.F., Morera, C., Sainz, M., Vermeire, K., et al. 2008. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 128(9): 968–975. doi: 10.1080/00016480701805471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helbig, S., Baumann, U. 2009. Acceptance and fitting of the DUET device - a combined speech processor for electric acoustic stimulation. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 67: 81–87. doi: 10.1159/000262599
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Helbig, S., Van de Heyning, P., Kiefer, J., Baumann, U., Kleine-Punte, A., Brockmeier, H., et al. 2011. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI100 implant system using the FLEXEAS electrode array. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 131(6): 585–595. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2010.544327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Incerti, P.V., Ching, T.Y., Cowan, R. 2013. A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes, and clinical fitting practices. Trends in Amplification, 17(1): 3–26. doi: 10.1177/1084713813480857
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• James, C., Albegger, K., Battmer, R., Burdo, S., Deggouj, N., Deguine, O., et al. 2005. Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 125(5): 481–491. doi: 10.1080/00016480510026197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurawitz, M.C., Büchner, A., Harpel, T., Schüssler, M., Majdani, O., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., et al. 2014. Hearing preservation outcomes with different cochlear implant electrodes: Nucleus® Hybrid™-L24 and Nucleus Freedom™ CI422. Audiology and Neurotology, 19(5): 293–309. doi: 10.1159/000360601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karsten, S.A., Turner, C.W., Brown, C.J., Jeon, E.K., Abbas, P.J., Gantz, B.J. 2013. Optimizing the combination of acoustic and electric hearing in the implanted ear. Ear and Hearing, 34(2): 142–150. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318269ce87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer, J., Pok, M., Adunka, O., Stürzebecher, E., Baumgartner, W., Schmidt, M., et al. 2005. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiology and Neurotology, 10(3): 134–144. doi: 10.1159/000084023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, B., Joseph, G., Rost, U., Strauss-Schier, A., Lenarz, T., Buechner, A. 2008. Performance groups in adult cochlear implant user: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otology & Neurotology, 29: 509–512. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318171972f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz, T., James, C., Cuda, D., Fitzgerald O’Connor, A., Frachet, B., Frijns, J.H., et al. 2013. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. International Journal of Audiology, 52(12): 838–848. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.802032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz, T., Stöver, T., Buechner, A., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Patrick, J., Pesch, J. 2009. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover. Audiology and Neurotology, 14: 22–31. doi: 10.1159/000206492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C., Glasberg, B., Schlueter, A. 2010. Detection of dead regions in the cochlea: relevance for combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Advances in Otorhino-Laryngology, 67: 43–50. doi:10.1159/000262595. Epub 2009 Nov 25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore, B.C., Glasberg, B.R., Vickers, D.A. 1999. Further evaluation of a model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(2): 898–907. doi: 10.1121/1.427105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morera, C., Cavalle, L., Manrique, M., Huarte, A., Angel, R., Osorio, A., et al. 2012. Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: Multicenter study of bimodal benefit. Acta Oto-Layrngologica, 132: 1084–1094. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2012.677546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Offeciers, E., Morera, C., Müller, J., Huarte, J., Shallop, J., Cavallé, L. 2005. International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. Acta oto-Laryngologica, 125(9): 918–919. doi: 10.1080/00016480510044412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, L.A., Perreau, A.E., Turner, C.W. 2012. Effects of lower frequency-to-electrode allocations on speech and pitch perception with the hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant. Audiology and Neurotology, 17(6): 357–372. doi: 10.1159/000341165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheffield, S.W., Gifford, R.H. 2014. The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth. Audiology and Neurotology, 19(3): 151–163. doi: 10.1159/000357588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Matusiak, M., Porowski, M., Skarzynski, P.H., James, C.J. 2012. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiology and Neurotology, 17(2): 82–91. doi: 10.1159/000329366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeire, K., Anderson, I., Flynn, M., Van de Heyning, P. 2008. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients. Ear and Hearing, 29: 76–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veugen, L.C., Chalupper, J., Snik, A.F., Opstal, A.J., Mens, L.H. 2016. Matching automatic gain control across devices in bimodal cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 37(3): 260–270. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener, K., Kuehnel, V., Kollmeier, B. 2006. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests fuer die deutsche Sprache. I. Design des Oldenburger Satztests. [Development and design of a sentence test for the german language. I. Design of the Oldenburg sentence test.]. Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38: 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, B.S., Dorman, M.F. 2008. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hearing Research, 242: 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, T., Dorman, M.F., Spahr, A.J. 2010. Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear and Hearing, 31(1): 63–69. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b7190c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar