Comparison of the body-worn CIS-PRO+ and the behind-the-ear-worn TEMPO+ cochlear implant systems in Finnish-speaking adult CI users: any differences in results with experienced listeners?

References

• Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz VM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352: 236–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott HJ, McKay CM, Vandali AE. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 3367–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J, Müller J, Pfenningdorff TH, Schön F, Helms J, von Ilberg C, et al. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (Med-El Combi40) compared to the Multipeak and Spectral Peak strategies (Nucleus). ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1996; 58: 127–35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins KM, Chen JM, Nedzelski DB, Shipp DB, McIlmoyl LD. A matched-pair comparison of two cochlear implant systems. J Otolaryngol 2002; 31: 97–105
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kompis M, Jenk M, Vischer MW, Seifert E, Hausler R. Intra- and intersubject comparison of cochlear implant systems using the Esprit and the Tempo+ behind-the-ear speech processor. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 555–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J, Hohl S, Stürzebecher E, Pfennigdorff T, Gstöettner W. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 2001; 40: 32–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loizou PC, Stickney G, Mishra L, Assmann P. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 12–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, Smith S, Waltzman S, Chute P, Domico E, et al. Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26: 455–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziese M, Stützel A, von Specht H, Begall K, Freigang B, Sroka S, et al. Speech understanding with the CIS and the n-of-m strategy in the Med-El Combi40+ system. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2000; 62: 321–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner MW, Holden LK, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Psarros C, Holden TA. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 207–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helms J, Müller J, Schön F, Winkler F, Moser L, Shehata-Dieler W, et al. Comparison of the TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor and the CIS-PRO+ body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2001; 63: 31–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson I, Weichbold V, D'Haese P. Recent results with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant and TEMPO+ behind-the-ear processor. Ear Nose Throat J 2002; 81: 229–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Määttä TK, Sorri MJ, Huttunen KH, Välimaa TT, Muhli AA. On the construction of a Finnish audiometric sentence test. Scand Audiol 2001; 29(Suppl 52)171–3
   Google Scholar
• Jauhiainen T. An experimental study of the auditory perception of isolated bi-syllable Finnish words. Academic Dissertation, University of Helsinki, 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Välimaa TT, Määttä TK, Löppönen HJ, Sorri MJ. Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45: 1039–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wevers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990; 13: 227–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1258–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa T, Sorri M, Löppönen H. Speech perception and auditory performance in Finnish adult cochlear implant users. Cochl Impl Int 2005; 6: 49–66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Muller JM, Tyler RS, Kiefer J. Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2003; 5: 207–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green KM, Julyan PJ, Hastings DL, Ramsden RT. Auditory cortical activation and speech perception in cochlear implant users: effects of implant experience and duration of deafness. Hear Res 2005; 205: 184–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar