scholarly journals Improved information transfer of phoneme features with a multiple‐electrode cochlear implant.

1991 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 2290-2290
Author(s):  
Hugh J. McDermott ◽  
Colette M. McKay
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Multiple Electrode

scholarly journals A multiple electrode cochlear implant

1977 ◽  
Vol 91 (11) ◽  
pp. 935-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. M. Clark ◽  
Y. C. Tong ◽  
R. Black ◽  
I. C. Forster ◽  
J. F. Patrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Multiple Electrode

Histologic Evaluation of Temporal Bones with Cochlear Implants

1983 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 610-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred H. Linthicum ◽  
Frank R. Galey
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Scala Tympani ◽  
Ectopic Bone ◽  
Histologic Evaluation ◽  
Temporal Bones ◽  
Multiple Electrode

Ectopic bone in the scala tympani is characteristic of cochlear otosclerosis and meningitis, which are the two most frequent etiologies of deafness in cochlear implant patients. The ectopic bone in a multiple-electrode implanted bone is probably caused by disease (syphilis) rather than by the electrode or electrical stimulation. The sensory elements being stimulated by intracochlear electrodes probably are the ganglion cells.

Design criteria of a multiple‐electrode cochlear implant hearing prosthesis

1978 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 631-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. M. Clark ◽  
R. Black ◽  
I. C. Forster ◽  
J. F. Patrick ◽  
Y. C. Tong
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Multiple Electrode

Vowel and Consonant Confusions among Cochlear Implant Patients: Do Different Implants Make a Difference?

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 141-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. S. Tyler ◽  
N. Tye-Murray ◽  
J. P. Preece ◽  
B. J. Gantz ◽  
B. F. McCabe
Keyword(s):  
Multidimensional Scaling ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Second Formant ◽  
Confusion Matrices

Vowel and consonant confusions were obtained from two patients, one using the Melbourne implant (M3) and one the Utah device (U1). The confusion matrices were analyzed using information transfer analysis and multidimensional scaling. The results from the two patients were generally consistent with the different processing strategies of their implants. For the vowels, M3 appeared to be processing second formant (F2) and duration, whereas U1 appeared to be attending primarily to first formant (F1) and duration. For the consonants, the responses of M3 reflected sensitivity to frication, voicing, and envelope, whereas the results from U1 suggested sensitivity to voicing, nasal, frication, and possibly “place” information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document