The next generation of Nucleus^® fitting: A multiplatform approach towards universal cochlear implant management

References

• Botros A.M. 2010. Designs for future development. The Application of Machine Intelligence to Cochlear Implant Fitting and the Analysis of the Auditory Nerve Response (PhD thesis). Sydney: The University of New South Wales, at http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/44707, pp. 135–150.
   Google Scholar
• Botros A. & Psarros C. 2010. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear Hear, 31, 367–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botros A., van Dijk B. & Killian M. 2007. AutoNRT™: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus® Freedom™ cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med, 40, 15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulos M.N.K., Wheeler S., Tavares C. & Jones R. 2011. How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: An overview, with example from eCAALYX. Biomed Eng Online, 10, 24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown C.J., Hughes M.L., Luk B., Abbas P.J., Wolaver A. et al. 2000. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: Data from adults. Ear Hear, 21, 151–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cafarelli Dees D., Dillier N., Lai W.K., Von Wallenberg E., van Dijk B. et al. 2005. Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol Neurootol, 10, 105–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carney E. & Schlauch R.S. 2007. Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 1203–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson P.W., Mauger S.J. & Hersbach A.A. 2011. Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear, 32, 382–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firszt J.B. & Reeder R.M. 2005. How we do it: Tuning up a young child. Cochlear Implants Int, 6, 178–182.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freeman B.A. 2009. The coming crisis in audiology. Audiol Today, 21, 46–52.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon K.A., Ebinger K.A., Gilden J.E. & Shapiro W.H. 2002. Neural response telemetry in 12- to 24-month-old children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 111, 42–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henkin Y., Kaplan-Neeman R., Muchnik C., Kronenberg J. & Hildesheimer M. 2003. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 67, 873–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Wolaver A.A. & Gervais J.P. 2000. Comparison of EAP thresholds to MAP levels in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear Hear, 21, 164–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L., Vander Werff K.R., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Kelsay D.M.R. et al. 2001. A longitudinal study of electrical impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 22, 471–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan A.M., Whiten D.M., Nadol J.B. & Eddington D.K. 2005. Histopathology of human cochlear implants: Correlation of psychophysical and anatomical measures. Hear Res, 205, 83–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung J., Wang N.-Y., Yeagle J.D., Chinnici J., Bowditch S. et al. 2005. Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 131, 1049–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maruthurkkara S., Arora K., Jones M., Nel E., Morgan C. et al. 2010. AutoNRT and the possibility of fitting cochlear implants like an audio player. In: J.B. Firszt & R.A. Chole (eds.). Abstracts of the 6th International Symposium on Objective Measures in Auditory Implants>.
   Google Scholar
• Maruthurkkara S., Crosson J. & Piraino J. 2011. Evaluation of efficient cochlear implant fitting paradigms. In: S-H. Lee (ed.). Abstracts of the 8th Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implant and Related Sciences, p. 215.
   Google Scholar
• McKay C.M., Fewster L. & Dawson P. 2005. A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear Hear, 26, 38S–44S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), 2004. Healthy Hearing 2010 Progress Review. Washington, DC, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Pedley K., Psarros C., Gardner-Berry K., Parker A., Purdy S.C. et al. 2007. Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol, 46, 254–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson G.E. & Lehiste I. 1962. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 27, 62–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plant K., Law M.-A., Whitford L., Knight M., Tari S. et al. 2005. Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array. Ear Hear, 26, 651–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception thresholds for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramos Macias A., Maggs J., Hanvey K., John M., Castillo C. et al. 2004. Use of intraoperative neural response telemetry in the initial fitting of very young children: Preliminary findings. Int Congr Series, 1273, 187–190.
   Google Scholar
• Seyle K. & Brown C.J. 2002. Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear, 23(1 Suppl.), 72S–79S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro W.H. & Bradham T.S. 2012. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 45, 111–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F. 2007. T- and C-level profiles across the electrode array: Fitting the speech processor by profile parameter adjustment. Cochlear Implant Ear Marks, Utrecht: at http://www.audiologics.com, pp. 35–54.
   Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F., Willeboer C. & van Dijk J.E. 2002. Speech perception in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol, 7, 335–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spivak L., Auerbach C., Vambutas A., Geshkovich S., Wexler L. et al. 2011. Electrical compound action potentials recorded with automated neural response telemetry: Threshold changes as a function of time and electrode position. Ear Hear, 32, 104–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y.S., Wu C.M. & Liu T.C. 2004. Mandarin speech perception in Nucleus CI24 implantees using MAPs based on neural response telemetry. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 66, 255–261.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thornton A.R. & Raffin M.J.M. 1978. Speech-discrimination scores modelled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 21, 497–506.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tykocinski M., Saunders E., Cohen L.T., Treaba C., Briggs R.S. et al. 2001. The Contour electrode array: Safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design. Otol Neurotol, 22, 33–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk B., Botros A.M., Battmer R.-D., Begall K., Dillier N. et al. 2007. Clinical results of AutoNRT™, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 558–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesarg T., Battmer R.-D., Garrido L.C., Dillier N., Garcia-Ibáñez L. et al. 2010. Effect of changing pulse rate on profile parameters of perceptual thresholds and loudness comfort levels and relation to ECAP thresholds in recipients of the Nucleus CI24RE device. Int J Audiol, 49, 775–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willeboer C. & Smoorenburg G.F. 2006. Comparing cochlear implant users’ speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or on compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear, 27, 789–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J. & Schafer E.C. 2010. Programming Cochlear Implants. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zwolan T.A. & Griffin B.L. 2005. How we do it: Tips for programming the speech processor of an 18-month-old. Cochlear Implants Int, 6, 169–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar