Effects of parameter manipulations on spread of excitation measured with electrically-evoked compound action potentials

References

• Abbas P.J., Brown C.J., Shallop J.K., Firszt J.B., Hughes M.L. 1999. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically-evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear, 20, 45–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbas P.J., Hughes M.L., Brown C.J., Miller C.A. & South H. 2004. Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically-evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnoldner C., Riss D., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A. & Hamzavi J.S. 2007. Cochlear implant channel separation and its influence on speech perception: Implications for a new electrode design. Audiol Neurootol, 12, 313–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boex C., Kos M.I & Pelizzone M. 2003. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2058–2065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosman A.J. & Smoorenburg G.F. 1995. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology, 34, 260–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Busby P.A., Battmer R.D. & Pesch J. 2008. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 29, 853–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee M. & Shannon R.V. 1998. Forward masked excitation patterns in multi-electrode electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 2565–2572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen L.T. 2009. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: (2) Spread of the effective stimulation field (ESF), from ECAP and FEA. Hear Res, 247, 100–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen L.T., Richardson L.M., Saunders E. & Cowan R.S. 2003. Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res, 179, 72–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen L.T., Saunders E. & Richardson L.M. 2004. Spatial spread of neural excitation: Comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol, 43, 346–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingemanse J.G., Frijns J.H. & Briaire J.J. 2006. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers. Ear Hear, 27, 645–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen M.D. & Franck K.H. 2005. Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 6, 160–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzmaurice G.M., Laird N.M. & Ware J.H. 2004. Linear mixed effects model. In: G.M. Fitzmaurice, N.M. Laird & J.H. Ware (eds.). Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 187–236.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D. & Wang X.2001. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1150–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frijns J.H., Briaire J.J., de Laat J.A. & Grote J.J2002. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: Speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear, 23, 184–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frijns J.H., Briaire J.J. & Grote J.J. 2001. The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol, 22, 340–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frijns J.H., Klop W.M., Bonnet R.M. & Briaire J.J. 2003. Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol, 123, 138–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnham C., O'Driscoll M., Ramsden A.R. & Saeed S. 2002. Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40 + cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear, 23, 540–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon K., Papsin B.C. & Harrison R.V. 2004. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear, 25, 447–463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Wolaver A.A. & Gervais J.P. 2000. Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear Hear, 21, 164–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L., Vander Werff K.R., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Kelsay D.M. 2001. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically-evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 22, 471–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L. & Abbas P.J. 2006a. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1538–1547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L. & Abbas P.J. 2006b. The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1527–1537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L. & Stille L.J. 2008. Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 29, 435–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes M.L. & Stille L.J. 2010. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically-evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 31, 679–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klop W.M., Frijns J.H., Soede W. & Briaire J.J. 2009. An objective method to measure electrode independence in cochlear implant patients with a dual-masker forward masking technique. Hear Res, 253, 3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klop W.M., Hartlooper A., Briare J.J. & Frijns J.H. 2004. A new method for dealing with the stimulus artefact in electrically-evoked compound action potential measurements. Acta Otolaryngol, 124, 137–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai W.K., Dillier N., Weber B.P., Lenarz T., Battmer R. 2009. TNRT profiles with the Nucleus research platform 8 system. Int J Audiol, 48, 645–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson D.A., Donaldson G.S. & Kreft H. 2008. Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1522–1543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Throckmorton C.S. & Collins L.M. 1999. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 861–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K. 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwolan T.A., Collins L.M. & Wakefield G.H. 1997. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 3673–3685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar