European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant

References

• Armstrong M., Pegg P., James C.J. & Blamey P. 1997. Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. Am J Otol, 18(6 Suppl.), S140–1.
   Google Scholar
• Blamey P., Arndt P., Bergeron F., Bredberg G., Brimacombe J. et al. 1996. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, 1(5), 293–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Briggs R.J.S., Tykocinski M., Xu J., Risi F., Svehla M. et al. 2006. Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode. Audiol Neurootol, 11 Suppl. 1, 42–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Büchner A., Schüssler M., Battmer R.D., Stöver T., Lesinski-Schiedat A. et al. 2009. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurootol, 14 Suppl. 1, 8–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching T., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 1998. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 103(2), 1128–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching T., Incerti P. & Hill M. 2004. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear, 25, 9–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Gifford R.H., Spahr A.J. & Mckarns S.A. 2008. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice, and melodies. Audiol Neurootol, 13, 105–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escudé B., James C.J., Deguine O., Cochard N., Eter E., et al. 2006. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol, 11 Suppl. 1, 27–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• El Fata F., James C.J., Laborde M-L. & Fraysse, B. 2009. How much residual hearing is “useful” for music perception with cochlear implants?Audiol Neurootol, 14 Suppl. 1, 14–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feeny D., Furlong W., Torrance G.W., Goldsmith C.H., Zhu Z. et al. 2002. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care, 40(2), 113–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finley C.C., Holden T. Holden L.K., Whiting B.R., Chole R. et al. 2008. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol, 29(7), 920–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fletcher H. & Galt R.H. 1950. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22(2), 89–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraysse B., Macías A.R., Sterkers O., Burdo S., Ramsden R. et al. 2006. Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol, 27(5), 624–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J. & Turner, C.W., 2003. Combining electric and acoustical hearing. Laryngoscope, 113, 1726–1730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43(2), 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K.E., Olszewski C., Turner C., Gantz B. & Oleson J. 2006. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiology & neuro-otology, 11, Suppl. 1, 12–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gifford R.H., Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J. & McKarns S.A. 2007. Effect of digital frequency compression (DFC) on speech recognition in candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50(5), 1194–202.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenwood D.D. 1990. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species: 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87(6), 2592–605.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Hogan A., Giles E., Stewar, M., Kethel L. et al, 2004. Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: A prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program. Int J Audiol, 43(4), 183–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hogan C.A. & Turner C.W., 1998. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104(1), 432–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horsman J., Furlong W., Feeny D. & Torrance G. 2003. The health utilities index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties, and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Von Ilberg C.A., Kiefer J., Tillein J., Pfenningdorff T., Hartmann R. et al. 1999. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 61(6), 334–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• James C.J., Fraysse B., Deguine O., Lenarz T., Mawman D. et al. 2006. Combined electroacoustic stimulation in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurootol, 11 Suppl. 1, 57–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kong Y., Stickney G.S. & Zeng F.-G., 2005. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 117(3 Pt 1), 1351–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz T., Stover T., Buechner A., Paasche G., Briggs R. et al. 2006. Temporal bone results and hearing preservation with a new straight electrode. Audiol Neurootol, 11 Suppl. 1, 34–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenarz T., Stöver T., Buechner A., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Patrick J. et al. 2009. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover. Audiol Neurootol, 14, Suppl. 1, 22–31.
   Google Scholar
• Mok M., Grayden D., Dowell R.C. & Lawrence D. 2006. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 49(2), 338–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Qin M.K. & Oxenham A.J. 2006. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 2417–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson J.D., Stainsby T.H., Baer T. & Moore B.C.J. 2009. Evaluation of a frequency transposition algorithm using wearable hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 48(6), 384–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson A., Hersbach A.A. & McDermott H. 2006. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol, 45(11), 619–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson A., McDermott H., Dowell R.C., Sucher C. & Briggs R.J.S. 2009. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation. Int J Audiol, 48(2), 63–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skarzynski H., Lorens A., Matusiak M., Porowski M., Skarzynski P.H. et al. 2012. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurootol, 17(2), 82–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stakhovskaya O., Sridhar D., Bonham B.H. & Leake P.A. 2007. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8(2), 220–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Summers V. 2004. Do tests for cochlear dead regions provide important information for fitting hearing aids?J Acoust Soc Am, 115(4), 1420–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turner C.W., Gantz, B.J., Vidal C., Behrens A. & Henry B.A. 2004. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 115(4), 1729–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• UKCISG. 2004a. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: Theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear, 25(4), 310–335.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• UKCISG 2004b. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear, 25(4), 336–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vickers D.A., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T., 2001. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 110(2), 1164–75.
   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 Hear, 31(1), 63–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar