Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes

References

• Agnew W.F., Bullara L.A., Yuen T.G., Mccreery D.B., Jacques D.B. 1981. The effects of electrical stimulation on the central and peripheral nervous systems. Pasadena, California: Huntington Institute of Applied Medical Research.
   Google Scholar
• Busby P., Plant K., Whitford L. 2002. Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants International, 3: 87–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charlet De Sauvage R., Lima Da Costa D., Erre J.P., Aran J.M. 1997. Electrical and physiological changes during short-term and chronic electrical stimulation of the normal cochlea. Hearing Research, 110: 119–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coco A., Epp S.B., Fallon J.B., Xu J., Millard R.E., Shepherd R.K. 2007. Does cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation affect residual hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons? Hearing Research, 225: 60–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dymond A.M. 1976. Characteristics of the metal-tissue interface of stimulation electrodes. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 23: 274–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallon J.B., Irvine D.R., Shepherd R.K. 2009. Cochlear implant use following neonatal deafness influences the cochleotopic organization of the primary auditory cortex in cats. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 512: 101–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C.Q., Tykocinski M., Stathopoulos D., Cowan R. 2007. Effects of steroids and lubricants on electrical impedance and tissue response following cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int, 8: 123–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kawano A., Sheldon H.L., Clark G.M., Ramsden R.T., Raine C.H. 1998. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockh), 118: 313–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newbold C. 2006. Electrode-tissue interface: development and findings of an in vitro model [PhD Thesis], University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Newbold C., Richardson R., Millard R., Seligman P., Cowan R., Shepherd R. 2011. Electrical stimulation causes rapid changes in electrode impedance of cell-covered electrodes. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8: 036029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ni D., Shepherd R.K., Seldon H.L., Xu S.A., Clark G.M., Millard R.E. 1992. Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I: Normal hearing kittens. Hearing Research, 62: 63–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasche G., Tasche C., Stover T., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Lenarz T. 2009. The long-term effects of modified electrode surfaces and intracochlear corticosteroids on postoperative impedances in cochlear implant patients. Otology & Neurotology, 30: 592–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders E., Cohen L.T., Aschendorff A., Shapiro W., Knight M., Stecker M., et al. 2002. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear and Hearing, 23: 28S–40S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seligman P., Shepherd R.K. 2004. Cochlear implants. In: Horch K.W., Dhillon G.S., (eds.) Neuroprosthetics: theory and practice. University of Utah, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Seligman P.M. 2004. Internal technical memo: electrode impedance variation with stimulation and time. Melbourne: Cochlear LTD.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. 1992. A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 39: 424–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd R.K., Franz B.K.-H., Clark G.M. 1990. The biocompatibility and safety of cochlear prostheses. In: Clark G.M., Tong Y.C., Patrick J.F., (eds.) Cochlear prostheses. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone.
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd R.K., Matsushima J., Martin R.L., Clark G.M. 1994. Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. deafened kittens. Hearing Research, 81: 150–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd R.K., Serruto A., Xu J., Crook J.M., Millard R.E. 2001. Protective effects of patterned electrical stimulation on the deafened auditory system. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-0-2109. Melbourne: Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Tykocinski M., Duan Y., Tabor B., Cowan R.S. 2001. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using high surface area (HiQ) platinum electrodes. Hearing Research, 159(1–2): 53–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tykocinski M., Cohen L.T., Cowan R.S. 2005. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otology & Neurotology, 26: 948–956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Clark G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing, 21: 608–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiland J.D., Anderson D.J. 2000. Chronic neural stimulation with thin-film, iridium oxide electrodes. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 47: 911–918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu J., Shepherd R.K., Millard R.E., Clark G.M. 1997. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study. Hearing Research, 105: 1–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar