Evaluation of simplified programs using the MED-EL C40+ cochlear implant

References

• Bamford J. Wilson I. 1979. Methodological considerations and practical aspects of the BKB Sentence Lists. J. Bench J. Bamford Speech-hearing Tests and the Spoken Language of Hearing-impaired Children. London: Academic Press, 147–187.
   Google Scholar
• Bigelow D.C., Kay D.J., Rafter K.O., Montes M., Knox G.W. . 1998. Facial nerve stimulation from cochlear implants. Am J Otol, 19(2), 163–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boyd P.J. 2006. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 27(6), 608–618.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bresnihan M., Norman G., Scott F. Viani L. 2001. Measurement of comfort levels by means of electrical stapedial reflex in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 127(8), 963–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brickley G., Boyd P., Wyllie F., O'Driscoll M., Webster D. . 2005. Investigations into electrically evoked stapedius reflex measures and subjective loudness percepts in the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant. Cochlear Implants International, 6(1), 31–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brill S.M., Gstottner W., Helms J. . 1997. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol, 18(6 suppl.), S104–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Fryauf-Bertschy H., Delsay D. Gantz B.J. 1994. Intraoperative and postoperative electrically evoked brainstem responses in Nucleus cochlear implant users: Implications for the fitting process. Ear Hear, 15, 168–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson P.W., Skok S.M. Clark M. 1997. The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 18, 156–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gani M., Valentini G., Sigrist A. . 2007. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8(1), 69–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garnham C., O'Driscoll M., Ramsden R. . 2002. Speech understanding in noise with a MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear, 23(6), 540–552.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 1993. Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 4(5), 296–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henkin Y., Kaplan-Neeman R., Muchnik C., Kronenberg J. Hildesheimer, M. 2003. Changes over time in the psycho-electric parameters in children with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol, 42(5), 274–278.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henkin Y., Kaplan-Neeman R., Kronenberg J., Migirov L., Hildesheimer M. . 2006. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol, 126(6), 581–586.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hughes M.L., Vander Werff K.R., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Kelsay D.M. . 2001. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 22(6), 471–486.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iwasaki S., Atsumi K., Ocho S. . 1998. Facial nerve stimulation by a cochlear implant in a haemodialysis patient with bone of low mineral density. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2565(7), 352–354.
   Google Scholar
• Kempf H.G., Johann K., Weber B.P. Lenarz T. 1997. Complications of cochlear implant surgery in children. Am J Otol, 18(6 Suppl.), S62–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lawson D.T., Wilson B.S., Finley C.C. . 1997. Cochlear implant studies at Research Triangle Institute and Duke University Medical Center. Scand Audiol Suppl, 46, 50–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morita T., Naito Y., Hirai T., Yamaguchi S. Ito J. 2003. The relationship between the intraoperative ECAP threshold and postoperative behavioural levels: The difference between postlingually deafened adults and prelingually deafened pediatric cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 260(2), 67–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munro K.M., Walker A.J. Purdy S.C. 2007. Evidence for adaptive plasticity in elderly monaural hearing aid users. Neuro Rep, 18(12), 1237–1240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nie K., Barco A. Zeng F.G. 2006. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear Hear, 27(2), 8–17.
   Google Scholar
• Niparko J.K., Oviatt D.L., Coker N.J. . 1991. Facial nerve stimulation with cochlear implantation. VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 104(6), 826–830.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfingst B.E. Xu L. 2004. Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 5(1), 11–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sainz M., de la Torre A., Roldan C. . 2003. Analysis of programming maps and its application for balancing multichannel cochlear implants. Int J Audiol, 42, 43–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt M. Griesser A. 1997. Long-term stability of fitting parameters with the COMBI 40. Am J Otol, 18(6), S109–110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shallop J.K., Facer G.W. Peterson A. 1999. Neural response telemetry with the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Laryngoscope, 109(11), 1755–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spahr A.J. Dorman M.F. 2005. Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear Hear, 26, 2S–6S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Preece J.P., Lansing C.R., Otto S.R. Gantz B.J. 1986. Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 282–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walravens E., Mawman D. O'Driscoll M. 2006. Changes in psychophysical parameters during the first month of programming the Nucleus Contour and Contour Advance cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int, 7(1), 15–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar