Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance

Bruce J. Gantz; Richard S. Tyler; John F. Knutson; George Woodworth; Paul Abbas; Brian F. McCabe; James Hinrichs; Nancy Tye-Murray; Charissa Lansing; Francis Kuk; Carolyn Brown

Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance

Bruce J. Gantz, Richard S. Tyler, John F. Knutson, George Woodworth, Paul Abbas, Brian F. McCabe, James Hinrichs, Nancy Tye-Murray, Charissa Lansing, Francis Kuk, Carolyn Brown

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Scopus citations

Abstract

The audiologic performance of 54 postlingually deafened adults wearing cochlear implants was uniformly evaluated. The participants had 9 months’ or more experience with one of five different cochlear prostheses (Los Angeles Single Channel (N a 11), Vienna Single Channel (N o 4), Melbourne Multichannel (N a 18), Utah Multichannel (N = 19), San Francisco Multichannel (N = 2). The multichannel designs enabled participants to recognize more environmental sounds, provided more speech reading enhancement, and enabled most users to understand limited speech in the sound-only condition, compared to the single-channel implant group.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1100-1106
Number of pages	7
Journal	Laryngoscope
Volume	98
Issue number	10
State	Published - Oct 1988

Cite this

@article{a5b49fb52d64478fb7d5ef308bf5f44a,

title = "Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance",

abstract = "The audiologic performance of 54 postlingually deafened adults wearing cochlear implants was uniformly evaluated. The participants had 9 months{\textquoteright} or more experience with one of five different cochlear prostheses (Los Angeles Single Channel (N a 11), Vienna Single Channel (N o 4), Melbourne Multichannel (N a 18), Utah Multichannel (N = 19), San Francisco Multichannel (N = 2). The multichannel designs enabled participants to recognize more environmental sounds, provided more speech reading enhancement, and enabled most users to understand limited speech in the sound-only condition, compared to the single-channel implant group.",

author = "Gantz, {Bruce J.} and Tyler, {Richard S.} and Knutson, {John F.} and George Woodworth and Paul Abbas and McCabe, {Brian F.} and James Hinrichs and Nancy Tye-Murray and Charissa Lansing and Francis Kuk and Carolyn Brown",

year = "1988",

month = oct,

language = "English",

volume = "98",

pages = "1100--1106",

journal = "Laryngoscope",

issn = "0023-852X",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs

T2 - Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance

AU - Gantz, Bruce J.

AU - Tyler, Richard S.

AU - Knutson, John F.

AU - Woodworth, George

AU - Abbas, Paul

AU - McCabe, Brian F.

AU - Hinrichs, James

AU - Tye-Murray, Nancy

AU - Lansing, Charissa

AU - Kuk, Francis

AU - Brown, Carolyn

PY - 1988/10

Y1 - 1988/10

N2 - The audiologic performance of 54 postlingually deafened adults wearing cochlear implants was uniformly evaluated. The participants had 9 months’ or more experience with one of five different cochlear prostheses (Los Angeles Single Channel (N a 11), Vienna Single Channel (N o 4), Melbourne Multichannel (N a 18), Utah Multichannel (N = 19), San Francisco Multichannel (N = 2). The multichannel designs enabled participants to recognize more environmental sounds, provided more speech reading enhancement, and enabled most users to understand limited speech in the sound-only condition, compared to the single-channel implant group.

AB - The audiologic performance of 54 postlingually deafened adults wearing cochlear implants was uniformly evaluated. The participants had 9 months’ or more experience with one of five different cochlear prostheses (Los Angeles Single Channel (N a 11), Vienna Single Channel (N o 4), Melbourne Multichannel (N a 18), Utah Multichannel (N = 19), San Francisco Multichannel (N = 2). The multichannel designs enabled participants to recognize more environmental sounds, provided more speech reading enhancement, and enabled most users to understand limited speech in the sound-only condition, compared to the single-channel implant group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023734064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 3172957

AN - SCOPUS:0023734064

SN - 0023-852X

VL - 98

SP - 1100

EP - 1106

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

IS - 10

ER -

Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance

Abstract

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this