Vowel perception and neural plasticity in cochlear implant users: The effect of more‐basal‐than‐normal stimulation

1997 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 3192-3192
Author(s):  
Mario A. Svirsky
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity ◽  
Vowel Perception

scholarly journals Current criteria for selecting cochlear implant in deaf patients: a review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Santosh Kumar Swain
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Unilateral Deafness

Cochlear implantation is indicated in patients with severe to profound hearing loss that cannot be adequately treated by other auditory rehabilitation measures. The definitive indication of cochlear implantation is made on the basis of an extensive interdisciplinary clinical, audiological, radiological, and psychological diagnostic work-up. There are numerous changes are happening in cochlear implant candidacy. These have been associated with concomitant changes in surgical techniques, which enhanced the utility and safety of cochlear implantation. Currently, cochlear implants are approved for individuals with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss rather than previously needed for bilateral profound hearing loss. Studies have begun using the short electrode arrays for shallow insertion in patients with low-frequency residual hearing loss. The advancement in designs of the cochlear implant along with improvements in surgical techniques reduce the complications and result in the safety and efficacy of the cochlear implant which further encourages the use of these devices. This review article aims to discuss the new concepts in the candidacy of the cochlear implant, cochlear implant in younger children and hearing preservation, a cochlear implant for unilateral deafness, bilateral cochlear implant, and cochlear implant with neural plasticity and selection of patients for the cochlear implant.

Cochlear implant channels with high thresholds degrade medial vowel perception.

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 2656-2656
Author(s):  
Julie Arenberg Bierer ◽  
Steven M. Bierer ◽  
Erin S. Maloff ◽  
Ann Lin
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception

Neural plasticity in blind cochlear implant users

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 177-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin MJ Green ◽  
Richard T Ramsden ◽  
Peter J Julyan ◽  
David L Hastings
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity

Neural plasticity detected in short-and long-term cochlear implant users using PET

Neuroreport ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Nishimura ◽  
Katsumi Doi ◽  
Takako Iwaki ◽  
Kazuo Hashikawa ◽  
Naohiko Oku ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity ◽  
Short And Long Term

Synthetic Two-Formant Vowel Perception by Some of the Better Cochlear-Implant Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 301-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Nancy Tye-murray ◽  
Brian C.J. Moore ◽  
Brian F. Me Cabe
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception

scholarly journals New Criteria of Indication and Selection of Patients to Cochlear Implant

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
André L. L. Sampaio ◽  
Mercêdes F. S. Araújo ◽  
Carlos A. C. P. Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Unilateral Deafness ◽  
Selection Of Patients ◽  
Selection Of

Numerous changes continue to occur in cochlear implant candidacy. In general, these have been accompanied by concomitant and satisfactory changes in surgical techniques. Together, this has advanced the utility and safety of cochlear implantation. Most devices are now approved for use in patients with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss rather then the prior requirement of a bilateral profound loss. Furthermore, studies have begun utilizing short electrode arrays for shallow insertion in patients with considerable low-frequency residual hearing. This technique will allow the recipient to continue to use acoustically amplified hearing for the low frequencies simultaneously with a cochlear implant for the high frequencies. The advances in design of, and indications for, cochlear implants have been matched by improvements in surgical techniques and decrease in complications. The resulting improvements in safety and efficacy have further encouraged the use of these devices. This paper will review the new concepts in the candidacy of cochlear implant. Medline data base was used to search articles dealing with the following topics: cochlear implant in younger children, cochlear implant and hearing preservation, cochlear implant for unilateral deafness and tinnitus, genetic hearing loss and cochlear implant, bilateral cochlear implant, neuropathy and cochlear implant and neural plasticity, and the selection of patients for cochlear implant.

Vowel Perception

1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Doyle ◽  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Bradly J. Edgerton
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Vowel Identification ◽  
Vowel Perception ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Frequency Information ◽  
Vowel Recognition ◽  
Second Formant

We investigated vowel perception by 15 subjects using the single-electrode cochlear implant used at the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles. Subjects were postlingually deaf adults having histories of unsuccessful hearing aid use and a minimum of 6 to 12 months experience with the implant. Eleven American English vowels spoken by a male talker were tape recorded, digitized, analyzed, and controlled for the experiments. The stimuli were audiorecordings of both natural and loudness-matched vowels. Subjects rated the dissimilarity of both the naturally spoken and the loudness-matched vowels, and performed identification of the latter. Two normal-hearing subjects served as controls for the dissimilarity tasks. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and percent correct identification analyses were used to help determine the perceptual features used by the subjects in their judgments. Generally, the normal-hearing subjects took advantage of second formant (F2) frequency information. The cochlear-implant users relied primarily upon fundamental (F0) and first formant (F1) frequency information and demonstrated difficulty in vowel identification. No major differences were noted for the natural versus loudness-matched vowels. F2 information, requisite for accurate vowel recognition, did not correspond to any of the perceptual dimensions discerned in the results obtained from implant subjects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document