Thirty years of the British Journal of Audiology: Guest editorial: The future of cochlear implants

References

• Abbas P J, Brown C J, Dillier N, Lai W K, Heller J. Measures of the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential using the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Presented at the Vth International Cochlear Implant Conference, New York, NY, May, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Battmer R-D, Gupta S P, Allum-Mecklenburg D, Lenarz T. Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(Suppl 166)185–187
   Google Scholar
• Blarney P J, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G, Larky J, Lindström B, Nedzelski J, Peterson A, Shipp D, Staller S, Whitford L. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996; 1: 293–306
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blarney P J, Pyman B C, Gordon M, Clark G M, Brown A M, Dowell R C, Hollow R D. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101: 342–348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brill S, Gstöttner W, Helms J, von Ilberg C, Baumgartner W, Müller J, Kiefer J. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast CIS-strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol, in press
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brill S, Hochmair E S. Speech understanding as a function of the number of active channels and stimulation rate in the CIS strategy as implemented in the Combi 40/Combi 40+. Presented at the Vth International Cochlear Implant Conference, New York, NY, May, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Brown C J, Abbas P J, Borland J, Bertschy M R. Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: Responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 453–467
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown C J, Abbas P J, Gantz B. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: Data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 1385–1391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busby P A, Tong Y C, Clark G M. The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 124–131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M F, Hannley M T, Dankowski K, Smith L, McCandless G. Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1989; 10: 44–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishman K, Shannon R V, Slattery W H. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Hear Res, in press
   Google Scholar
• Eddington D K, Runbinstein J T, Dynes S BC. Forward masking during intracochlear electrical stimulation: Models, physiology, and psychophysics. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 2904
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan J L. Speech analysis, synthesis and perception. Springer-Verlag, New York 1972
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel K B, Koehnke J, Colburn H S. Frequency dependence of binaural performance in listeners with impaired binaural hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 336–347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B J, Woodworth G G, Abbas P J, Knutson J F, Tyler R S. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993; 102: 909–916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann R, Topp G, Klinke R. Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res 1984; 13: 47–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill F J, McRae P, McClellan R P. Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1968; 44: 13–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson D H, Kiang N YS. Analysis of discharges recorded simultaneously from pairs of auditory nerve fibers. Biophysical J 1976; 16: 719–734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J, Pfennigdorff T, Rupprecht V, Huber-Egener J, von Ilberg C. The effect of stimulus rate and channel number on speech understanding with the CIS-strategy in cochlear implant patients. Presented at the Third European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, Hannover, Germany, June, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Rupprecht V, Huber-Egener J, Baumgartner W, Gstöttner W, Stephan K. Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implants: The effect of variations in stimulus rate and numbers of channels. Presented at the Vth International Cochlear Implant Conference, New York, NY, May, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Kileny P R. Use of electrophysiological measures in the management of children with cochlear implants: Brainstem, middle latency, and cognitive (P300) responses. Am J Otol 1991; 12(Suppll)37–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kileny P R, Zimmerman-Philips S, Kemink J L, Schmaltz S P. Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 563–568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutson J F, Hinrichs J V, Tyler R S, Gantz B J, Schartz H A, Woodworth G. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 817–822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T D, Sharma A. Neurophysiologic bases of speech discrimination. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 19–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuzma J A. Cochlear electrode implant assemblies with positioning system therefor. US patent 5545219, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Kuzma J A, Seldon H L, Brown G G. Self-curving cochlear electrode array. US patent 5578084, Nov. 26, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Lawson D T, Wilson B S, Finley C C. New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Prog Brain Res 1993; 97: 313–321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson D T, Wilson B S, Zerbi M, Finley C C. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-5–2103. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1996
   Google Scholar
• Lawson D T, Wilson B S, Zerbi M, Finley C C. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Fifth Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-5–2103. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1996
   Google Scholar
• McDermott H J, McKay C M, Vandali A E. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 3367–3391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott H J, Vandali AE. Spectral maxima sound processor. US patent 5597380, Jan. 281997
   Google Scholar
• Meddis R. Simulation of mechanical to neural transduction in the auditory receptor. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79: 702–711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Micco A G, Kraus N, Koch D B, McGee T J, Carrell T D, Sharma A, Nicol T, Wiet R J. Speechevoked cognitive P300 potentials in cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1995; 16: 514–520
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B CJ. An introduction to the psychology of hearing 3rd edn. Academic Press, London 1989
   Google Scholar
• Morse R P, Evans E F. Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise. Nature Med 1996; 2: 928–932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss F, Chioutan F, Klinke R. Will there be noise in their ears? Nature Med 1996; 2: 860–862
   Google Scholar
• NIH Consensus Statement. Cochlear implants in adults and children. Reproduced in JAMA 1995; 274: 1955–1961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim A V, Schafer R W. Digital signal processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1975
   Google Scholar
• Parkins C W. Temporal response patterns of auditory nerve fibers to electrical stimulation in deafened squirrel monkeys. Hear Res 1989; 41: 137–168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parnas B R. Noise and neuronal populations conspire to encode simple waveforms reliably. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1996; 43: 313–318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponton C W, Don M. The mismatch negativity in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 131–146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabiner L R, Schafer R W. Digital Processing of Speech Signals. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1978
   Google Scholar
• Ranck J B, Jr. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of the mammalian central nervous system: A review. Brain Res 1975; 98: 417–440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seldon H L, Daham M C, Clark G M. Silastic with polyacrylic acid filler: Swelling properties, biocompatibility and potential use into cochlear implants. Biomaterials 1994; 15: 1161–1169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd R K, Hatsushika S, Clark G M. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: The effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hearing Res 1993; 66: 108–120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipp D B, Nedzelski J M. Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: A prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(Suppl 166)194–196
   Google Scholar
• Shiroma M, Honda K, Yamanaka N, Kawano J, Yukawa K, Kumakawa K, Funasaka S. Factors contributing to phoneme recognition ability of users of the 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101: 32–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M W, Clark G M, Whitford L A, Seligman P M, Staller S J, Shipp D B, Shallop J K, Evering-ham C, Menapace C M, Arndt P L, Antogenelli T, Brimacombe J A, Pijl S, Daniels P, George C R, McDermott H J, Beiter A L. Evaluation of a new spectral peak (SPEAK) coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol 1994; 15(Suppl 2)15–27
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skinner M W, Ketten D R, Vannier M W, Gates G A, Yoffie R L, Kalender W A. Determination of the position of Nucleus cochlear implant electrodes in the inner ear. Am J Otol 1994; 15: 644–651
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Summerfield A Q, Marshall D H. Preoperative predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: Performance and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(Suppl 166)105–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Hoesel R JM, Clark G M. Fusion and lateralization study with two binaural cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(Suppl 166)233–235
   Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R JM, Clark G M. Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 495–507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R JM, Tong Y C, Hallow R D, Clark G M. Psychophysical and speech perception studies: A case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 3178–3189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Farmer J C, Lawson D T, Weber B A, Wolford R D, Kenan P D, White M W, Merzenich M M, Schindler R A. Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1988; 98: 1069–1077
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-NS-3–2356. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1985
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T, Wolford R D, Eddington D K, Rabinowitz W M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352: 236–238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T, Zerbi M. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-NS-3–2356. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1995
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T, Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol, in press
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T, Zerbi M, van den Honert C. High rate coding strategies. Presented at the International Workshop on Cochlear Implants, Vienna, Austria, Oct, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Zerbi M, Lawson D T. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-2–2401. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1994
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Finley C C, Zerbi M, Lawson D T. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-2–2401. Neural Prosthesis Program. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 1994
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Lawson D T, Zerbi M. Advances in coding strategies for cochlear implants. Adv Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995b; 9: 105–129
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Lawson D T, Zerbi M, Finley C C, Wolford R D. Recent developments with the CIS strategies. Advances in cochlear implants, IJ. Hochmair-Desoyer, E S Hochmair. Manz Interscience Series, Vienna 1994c; 103–112
   Google Scholar
• Wilson B S, Rebscher S, Zeng F-G, Shannon R V, Loeb G E, Lawson D T, Zerbi M. Design for an inexpensive but effective cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, in press
   Google Scholar
• Zeng F-G. Cochlear implants in China. Audiology 1995; 34: 61–75
   PubMedGoogle Scholar