Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems

References

• Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 2000;11:153–8.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon RV. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction. Hear Res 1983;12:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong YC, Clark M. Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interactions for sensations produced by electric stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;79:1958–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim HH, Tong YC, Clark GM. Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1989;86:971–80.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen LT, Busby PA, Clark GM. Cochlear implant place psychophysics. 1. Pitch estimation with deeply inserted electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 1996;1: 265–77.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee M, Shannon RV. Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103:2565–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Throckmorton CS, Collins M. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105: 861–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayad JN, Luxford W, Linthicum FH. The Clarion elect-rode positioner: temporal bone studies. Am J Otol 2000;21: 226–9.
   Google Scholar
• Richter B, Aschendorff A, Lohnstein P, Husstedt H, Nagursky H, Laszig R. The Nucleus Contour electrode array: a radiological and histological study. Laryngoscope 2001;111:508–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, Shapiro W, Knight M, Stecker M, et al. Threshold, comfortable level and impe-dance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 2002;23:285–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frinjs JH, Briaire JJ, Grote JJ. The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of the modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neurootol 2001;22: 340–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hanekom T. Three-dimensional spiraling finite element model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Ear Hear 2001; 22:300–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd RK, Hatsushika S, Clark GM. Electrical stimula-tion of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res 1993;66:108–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stocldi) 1998;118:313–26.
   Google Scholar
• Young NM, Grohne KM. Comparison of pediatric Clarion recipients with and without the electrode positioner. Otol Neurootol 2001;22:195–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson GS, Peters MD, Ellis MR, Friedman BJ, Levine SC, Rimell FL. Effects of the Clarion Electrode Positioning System on auditory thresholds and comfortable loudness levels in pediatric patients with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127:956–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hochmair I, Wolfgang A, Nopp P, Jolly C, Muller J, Roland P. Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech reception results. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:612–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991;352:236–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battmer RD, Zilberman Y, Haake P, Lenarz T. Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)-Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) pilot comparison study in Europe. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:69–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Osberger MJ, Fisher L. SAS-CIS preference study in post-lingually deafened adults implanted with the Clarion® cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999;108: 74–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngblood J, Robinson S. Ineraid® (Utah) multichannel cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1988;98:5–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balkany TJ, Cohen NL, Gantz B. Surgical technique for the Clarion® cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999; 108:27–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh MA, Xu J, Blamey PJ, Whitford LA, Xu SA, Silverman JM, et al. Radiologic evaluation of multichannel intracochlear implant insertion depth. Am J Otol 1993;14: 386–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM. Computer aided three dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: mea-surements of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall and Rosenthal's canal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:701–9.
   Google Scholar
• Pelizzone M, Bodx C, Montandon P. Vowel and consonant identification tests can be used to compare performances in a multilingual group of cochlear implant patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1993;55:341–6.
   Google Scholar
• Richter B, Aschendorff A, Lohnstein P, Husstedt H, Nagursky H, Laszig R. Clarion 1.2® standard electrode array with partial space-filling positioner: radiological and histological evaluation in human temporal bones. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116: 507–13.
   Google Scholar
• Gstoetmer W, Franz P, Hamzavi J, Plenk H Jr, Baumg artner W, Czerny C. Intracochlear position of coch-lear implant electrodes. Acta Otolaryngol (Stocldi) 1999; 119:229–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadol J, Shiao YS, Burgess B, Detten D, Eddington DK. Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001;110:883–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodx C, Pelizzone M, Montandon P. Speech recognition with a CIS strategy for the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1996;17:61–7.
   Google Scholar
• Pelizzone M, Cosendai G, Tinembart J. Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for Ineraid implanted sub-jects. Ear Hear 1999;20:228–37.
   Google Scholar
• Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowel RC, et al. Factors predicting post-operative sentence score in post-lingually deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:342–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges AV, Villasuso E, Balkany T, Bird PA, Butts S, Lee D, et al. Hearing results with deep insertion of cochlear implant electrodes. Am J Otol 1999;20:53–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skinner MW, Ketten DR, Holden LK, Harding GW, Smith PG, Gates GA, et al. CT-derived estimation of the cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolar-yngol 2002;3:332–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz BJ, Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1726–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar