PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3520441

Stimulation and encoding strategies for cochlear prostheses.

B E Pfingst
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article reviews the various stimulation and encoding strategies currently used in hearing prostheses for profoundly deaf individuals. Various designs for implanted electrode arrays, electrode drivers, and systems for transmitting signals are described. The various strategies for encoding acoustic signals for delivery as electrical stimuli to the auditory nerve are reviewed. Finally, applications of these various stimulation and encoding strategies are described using examples from different groups worldwide which have developed their own unique prosthetic devices.

Explore related subjects

Cochlear ImplantsElectrodes, ImplantedElectronics, MedicalHumansProsthesis DesignTransducersJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B E Pfingst. 1986. Stimulation and encoding strategies for cochlear prostheses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3520441/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

[Cochlear implantation].

Since the Israeli cochlear implant program was started in June 1989, 74 candidates have been evaluated for implantation. The main causes for hearing loss were meningitis (16 patients), aminoglycoside toxicity (9), congenital (6), viral (e.g. mumps) (6), and middle ear infection. Candidates were rejected mainly due to psychosocial factors (40%) and audiological parameters (30%). 16 postlingual deaf were implanted. In 7 of them (43.7%) the results were excellent, in 4 (25.0%) good, in 3 (18.7%) fair; 1 case is currently in a training program and 1 is a failure. There were 2 major complications: facial nerve palsy which necessitated surgical decompression, and insertion of the electrodes into the hypotympanic air cells, corrected by reoperation.

Cochlear Implants↗
PubMed1992

Performance over time with a nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant.

This investigation determined whether the audiological performance of cochlear implant users varied with experience. Thirteen Nucleus and 14 Ineraid subjects were evaluated at 1, 9, and 18 mo after cochlear implant connection. Ten Nucleus and five Ineraid subjects were tested at 30 mo. On average, the ability of the subjects to recognize words and phonemes in an audition-only condition improved during the first 9 mo, as did their ability to recognize spondees in noise. The phoneme scores continued to improve during the next 9 mo. Environmental sound recognition improved gradually; significant improvement from the 1 mo scores was not noted until 18 mo. About half of the subjects who demonstrated poor word recognition at 1 mo showed significantly improved percent word correct scores by 18 mo. The Nucleus and Ineraid subjects did not differ in their patterns of change over time. An information transmission analysis performed on the subjects' consonant confusion matrices showed relatively little change for the nasality and place features during the first 18 mo, and relatively large change for the voice, duration, and frication features. Most improvement in the feature scores occurred during the first 9 mo.

Cochlear Implants↗