Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode

References

• Arnold L., & Boyle P. 2003. Early results on high resolution (High Resolution Mode) programming with the Soundwave fitting software. Presented at the 7th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Related Audiological Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, May 22–24.
   Google Scholar
• Battmer R.D., Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Popp P. & Lenarz T. 2002. The Clarion® CII High Resolution Mode: experience after six months. Presented as a poster during the 7th International Cochlear Implant Conference, Manchester, UK, September 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Battmer R.D., Zilberman Y., Haake P., et al. Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)-Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) pilot comparison study in Europe. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999; 177: 69–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Battmer R.D. & Lenarz T. 2003. Investigation of stimulation rates between 500 and 5000 pps with the Clarion 1.2, Nucleus CI24 and Clarion CII devices. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Electronic Implants in Otology & Conventional Hearing Aids. Toulouse, France.
   Google Scholar
• Büchner A., Frohne C., Battmer R.D. & Lenarz T. 2003a. Investigation of Stimulation Rates between 800 and 5000 pps with the CLARION CII Implant. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
   Google Scholar
• Gstoettner W., Adunka O., Hamzavi J., Lautischer M., Baumgartner W.D. Speech discrimination in post-lingually deaf patients with cochlear implants. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2000; 112(11)487–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmair-Desoyer I., Schulz E., Moser L., Schmidt M. The HSM Sentence Test as a Tool for Evaluating the Speech Understanding in Noise of Cochlear Implant Users. The Am J Otol 1998; 18: 83
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer J., Hohl S., Sturzebecher E., Pfennigdorff T., Gstoettner 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 CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 2001; 40(1)32–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kiefer J., v. Ilberg C., Hubner-Egner J., Rupprecht V., Knecht R. Optimized Speech Understanding with the Continuous Interleaved Sampling Speech Coding Strategy in Patients with Cochlear Implants: Effect of Variations in Stimulation Rate and Number of Channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000; 109: 1009–1020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehnhardt E. & Laszig R. 2000. Praxis der Audiometrie. Thieme, Stuttgart, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Lenarz T., Kuzma J., Weber B.P., et al. New Clarion electrode with positioner: insertion studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000; 185: 16–18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenarz T., Tasche C., Frohne C. , et al 2001. Comparison of different Clarion and Nucleus Electrode Systems within Matched-Paired Groups. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
   Google Scholar
• Loizou P., Poroy O., Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108(2)790–802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein J.T., Hong R. Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2003; 191: 14–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmidt M., Hochmeir-Desoyer I., Schulz E., & Moser L. Der HSM-Satztest [German]. Fortschritte der Akustik – DAGA, Kiel, Germany, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Segel P., Voelkel A., Faltys M., Hartley L. & Kessler D. 2001. The systematic evaluation of Parameters in the Fitting of High Resolution Strategies in the Clarion Bionic Ear System. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses, Asilomar.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Psarros C., et al. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear 2002; 23(3)207–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Fourakis M.S., Holden T.A., Holden L.K., Demorest M.E. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. I. Vowels. Ear Hear 1996; 17(3)182–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Fourakis M.S., Holden T.A., Holden L.K., Demorest M.E. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. II. Consonants. Ear Hear 1999; 20(6)443–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staller S., Menapace C., Domico E., et al. Speech perception abilities of adult and pediatric Nucleus implant recipients using the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) coding strategy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117(3 Pt1): 236–42
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Clark G.M. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000; 21(6)608–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitford L.A., Seligman P.M., Everingham C.E., et al. Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in post-linguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngol 1995; 115(5)629–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman-Phillips S., Murad C. Programming Features of the Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1999; 108: 17–21
   Google Scholar