Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:59:15.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues in Cochlear Prosthetics From an International Survey of Opinions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

J. Lance De Foa  and
Gerald E. Loeb
J. Lance De Foa
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Gerald E. Loeb
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cochlear prostheses are beginning to be implanted regularly to restore hearing in profoundly deaf patients, but there is little agreement on the relative merits of the many different designs and rehabilitative procedures. We report on the responses to a technology assessment questionnaire that was sent to 120 researchers and clinicians worldwide who have been at the forefront of research in this field.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Summer 1991 , pp. 403 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Banfai, P. (ed.). Cochlear implant: Current situation. Erklenz, GDR: Rudolf Bermann GmBH, 1988.Google Scholar
2.Bilger, R. C.Evaluation of subjects presently fitted with implanted auditory prostheses. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (St. Louis), 1977, 86(suppl. 38), 1–176.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Burian, K., Hochmair-Desoyer, I. J., & Eisenwort, B.The Vienna cochlear implant program. Otolaryngology Clinics of North America, 1986, 19, 313–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Curtiss, S.Issues in language acquisition relevant to cochlear implants in young children. In Owens, E. & Kessler, D. K. (eds.), Cochlear implants in young deaf children. Boston, MA: College-Hill, 1989, 293–306.Google Scholar
5.Franz, B. K., Dowell, R. C, Clark, G. M., et al. Recent developments with the Nucleus 22-electrode cochlear implant: A new two formant speech coding strategy and its performance background noise. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 1987, 8, 516–18.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Fretz, R. J., & Fravel, R. P.Design and function: A physical and electrical description of the 3M-House cochlear implant system. Ear & Hearing (Baltimore), 1985, 6(suppl. 3), 205–35.Google Scholar
7.Gantz, B. J., Tyler, R. S., Knutson, J. F., et al. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiological assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope, 1988, 98, 1100–06.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Hinojosa, R., Blough, R. R., & Mhoon, E. E.Profound sensorineural deafness: A histopathologic study. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (St. Louis), 1987, 96(supp. 28), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Loeb, G. E.Neural prosthetic strategies for young children. In Owens, E. & Kessler, D. K. (eds.), Cochlear implants in young deaf children. Boston, MA: College-Hill, 1989,137–52.Google Scholar
10.Loeb, G. E.Cochlear prosthetics. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1990, 13, 357–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lousteau, R. J.Increased spiral ganglion cell survival in electrically stimulated, deafened guinea pig cochleae. Laryngoscope, 1987, 97, 837–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.McElveen, J. T Jr., Hitselberger, W. E., & House, W. F.Surgical accessibility of the cochlear nuclear complex in man: Surgical landmarks. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery(St. Louis), 1987, 96, 135–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.McElveen, J. T. Jr., Hitselberger, W. E., House, W. R, et al. Electrical stimulation of cochlear nucleus in man. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 1985, 6, 81–88.Google Scholar
14.O’Donoghue, G. M., Jackler, R. K., Jenkins, W. M., et al. Cochlear implantation in children: The problem of head growth. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (St. Louis), 1986, 94, 78–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Parkin, J. L., & Stewart, B. E.Multichannel cochlear implantation: Utah design. Laryngoscope, 1988, 98, 262–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Rizer, F. M., Arkis, P. N., Lippy, W. H., et al. A post-operative audiometric evaluation of cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (St. Louis), 1988, 98, 203–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Schindler, R. A., & Kessler, D. K.The UCSF/Storz cochlear implant: Patient performance. American Journal of Otology, 1987, 8, 247–55.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Wong-Riley, M., Leake-Jones, P., Walsh, S., & Merzenich, M. M.Maintenance of neuronal activity by electrical stimulation of unilaterally deafened cats demonstrable with cytochrome oxidase technique. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (St. Louis), 1981, 90(suppl. 82), 30–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed