References
- National Institutes of Health. Cochlear implants in adults and children. NIH consensus statement 13. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1995: 1–30.
- Kirk KI. Challenges in the clinical investigation of cochlear implant outcomes. In: Niparko JK, ed. Cochlear implants, principles & practices. Philadel-phia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Williams, 2000: 225–59.
- Moore BC, Glasberg BR. Suggested formulae for cal-culating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation pat-terns. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74: 750–3.
- Frijns JHM, Briaire JJ, Grote JJ. The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neuro-tol 2001; 22: 340–9.
- Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech proces-sor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40: 1201–15.
- Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recogni-tion: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3586–96.
- Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the num-ber of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hear-ing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150–63.
- Faulkner A, Rosen S, Wilkinson L. Effects of the number of channels and speech-to-noise ratio on rate of connected discourse tracking through a simulated cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear 2001; 22: 431–8.
- Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352: 236–8.
- Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, Abbas PJ. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999; 127: 108–18.
- Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Zerbi M. Tem-poral representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997; 18 (6 Suppl): S30–4.
- Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Schatzer R, et al. Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implant: the effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. In: Waltzman SB, Cohen N, eds. Cochlear implants. New York: Thieme, 1999.
- Frijns JHM, Briaire JJ, De Laat JAPM, Grote JJ. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear im-plant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 184–97.
- Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM. A fitting strategy for cochlear implants based on minimum cross-turn stimulation [pa-per in preparation].
- Smoorenburg GF. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 421–37.
- Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 589–97.