ライフサイエンスコーパス: cochlear implant

1 een in the creation of the highly successful cochlear implant.

2 ital deafness, or congenital deafness with a cochlear implant.

3 on is one aspect in improving hearing with a cochlear implant.

4 ct further research and design of an optical cochlear implant.

5 ly deaf cats for 3 months with a six-channel cochlear implant.

6 he human cochlear nerve to vowels coded by a cochlear implant.

7 ed by extracellular field stimulation from a cochlear implant.

8 earing loss, with or without hearing aids or cochlear implants.

9 ti-microphone noise reduction strategies for cochlear implants.

10 the MSO of hearing, deaf, and deaf cats with cochlear implants.

11 lear hearing loss, even with hearing aids or cochlear implants.

12 d hearing impairments, and even for users of cochlear implants.

13 nd in congenitally deaf children fitted with cochlear implants.

14 ption in people with hearing impairments and cochlear implants.

15 else after the provision of hearing aids or cochlear implants.

16 oustic pressure locally, which could improve cochlear implants.

17 lead to improved restoration of hearing with cochlear implants.

18 ocessing, and postsurgical rehabilitation in cochlear implants.

19 implant users and for those unable to access cochlear implants.

20 aches, such as determining compatibility for cochlear implants.

21 ed approach to neurosensory restoration with cochlear implants.

22 t with restoration of auditory function with cochlear implants.

23 ust auditory responsiveness elicited through cochlear implants.

24 r stimulation enables electrical hearing via cochlear implants.

25 d among school-aged children with unilateral cochlear implants (-1.8 h/d [95% CI,-3.0 to -0.6 h/d]),

26 in the analysis: 15 children with SSD and a cochlear implant, 16 children with SSD without a cochlea

27 8 (3.5 years)], 38 with sequential bilateral cochlear implants [24 boys (63.2%); mean (SD) age, 9.1 (

28 ge, 9.1 (4.2) years], and 87 with unilateral cochlear implants [40 boys (46.0%); mean (SD) age, 7.9 (

29 ren with an intact auditory nerve received a cochlear implant (44%, convenience sample).

30 ess, 2.5% (64/2527) required hearing aids or cochlear implants, 49.9% (1277/2561) had been rehospital

31 62 children (137 with simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants [74 boys (54.0%); mean (SD) age, 5.8 (

32 The cochlear implant, a microelectrode array that directly s

33 ce, -11.49 [95% CI, -14.26 to -8.72]), after cochlear implant activation.

34 ompared with that in patients who received a cochlear implant after a period of profound deafness.

35 Speech recognition in noise was compared for cochlear implants alone and for the bimodal ETS conditio

36 d speech reception thresholds by 2.2 dB over cochlear implants alone.

37 ts from experiments 2 and 3 showed that both cochlear implant and normal-hearing performance signific

38 With the cochlear implant and the midbrain multielectrode arrays

39 duction was slightly delayed for people with cochlear implants and considerably more delayed for norm

40 Stimulation with cochlear implants and hearing aids is becoming more wide

41 d congenitally deaf cats received unilateral cochlear implants and were stimulated for a period of 10

42 sufficient access to melodic information for cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.

43 lear implant, 16 children with SSD without a cochlear implant, and 30 children with normal hearing.

44 s including the many hearing device options, cochlear implant, and assistive devices can help direct

45 Deafened guinea pigs received a cochlear implant, and their cochleas were infused with B

46 experienced by people with hearing loss and cochlear implants, and may point to future areas where s

47 ding FM may improve auditory scene analysis, cochlear-implant, and audiocoding performance.

48 llow-up of implanted children has shown that cochlear implants are able to provide substantial langua

49 Cochlear implants are an effective technique for enhanci

50 should ensure that all children who receive cochlear implants are appropriately vaccinated and are t

51 Cochlear implants are highly successful neural prosthese

52 ehavioral measures of spatial selectivity in cochlear implants are important both for guiding the pro

53 Cochlear implants are neuroprosthetic devices that can r

54 Cochlear implants are the first example of a neural pros

55 The cochlear implant arguably is the most successful neural

56 s ability to be integrated with conventional cochlear implant arrays.

57 n recognition was measured in listeners with cochlear implant as a function of the number of channels

58 More than 60,000 people worldwide use cochlear implants as a means to restore functional heari

59 ences, and participants included people with cochlear implants as well as people with normal hearing

60 History A 1-year-old boy was referred for cochlear implant assessment after he received a diagnosi

61 nd no-GM1 deafened control groups received a cochlear implant at 7-8 weeks of age and at least 6 mont

62 behaviours show that children who receive a cochlear implant at an early age perform at least as wel

63 linical trial included 40 patients receiving cochlear implants at a single tertiary care center in Vi

64 y in the auditory nerve and may help explain cochlear implant benefits in childhood deafness.

65 maintained database of patients who received cochlear implants between January 1, 2012, and December

66 Bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or a CI for single-sided deaf

67 Bilateral cochlear-implant (BiCI) users are less accurate at local

68 Neural stimulation is used in the cochlear implant, bionic eye, and deep brain stimulation

69 earing loss may include use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone anchored devices, or use of assi

70 ehabilitation devices included hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone conduction hearing aids, and per

71 entifying populations who may benefit from a cochlear implant but among whom penetrance is poor is an

72 In turn, the cochlear implant can be exploited as an experimental too

73 monstrate that electrical stimulation with a cochlear implant can help preserve central auditory syna

74 o implant children at a very young age, as a cochlear implant can provide auditory input during this

75 Cochlear implants can partially restore auditory functio

76 Although cochlear implants can restore hearing perception in USH1

77 All adult patients evaluated for cochlear implant candidacy from January 1, 1999, through

78 A total of 21 older adult cochlear implant candidates were included in the analysi

79 One possible reason is that conventional cochlear implants cannot activate selectively the audito

80 0 with 1-year follow-up at a single tertiary cochlear implant center.

81 nosis, hearing aid fitting, and referral for cochlear implant (CI) assessment for each of these group

82 s maladaptive for hearing restoration with a cochlear implant (CI) due to cross-modal recruitment of

83 In order to develop atraumatic cochlear implant (CI) electrodes, high-precision details

84 imulation of the auditory periphery organ by cochlear implant (CI) generates highly synchronized inpu

85 Combined use of a hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) has been shown to improve CI users

86 The modern cochlear implant (CI) is the most successful neural pros

87 The cochlear implant (CI) is the most successful neural pros

88 The cochlear implant (CI) is the most successful neural pros

89 The cochlear implant (CI) is the most widely used neuroprost

90 Bimodal cochlear implant (CI) listeners have difficulty utilizin

91 Speech perception among cochlear implant (CI) listeners is highly variable.

92 n question-statement identification by adult cochlear implant (CI) listeners.

93 For bilateral cochlear implant (CI) patients, electrodes that receive

94 ng environmental sound training programs for cochlear implant (CI) patients.

95 eurofunctional predictors concur to modulate cochlear implant (CI) performance remains unclear.

96 a CI device.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT In modern cochlear implant (CI) processors, the temporal informati

97 ns can be a new and difficult experience for cochlear implant (CI) recipients.

98 Cochlear implant (CI) speech performance is typically ev

99 Current cochlear implant (CI) strategies carry speech informatio

100 Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology allow for acoustic and

101 Hearing aid and cochlear implant (CI) users often struggle to locate and

102 Cochlear implant (CI) users receive only limited sound i

103 m perception has previously been examined in cochlear implant (CI) users through various tasks based

104 For many cochlear implant (CI) users, frequency discrimination is

105 mulating the speech information available to cochlear implant (CI) users.

106 nsidered the gold standard in the testing of cochlear implant (CI) users.

107 Timbre perception is poor in cochlear implant (CI) users.

108 li, listening with both hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) was significantly better than list

109 y true for early-deafened children wearing a cochlear implant (CI), who must exhibit great adaptabili

110 speech-filtering that mimics processing by a cochlear implant (CI)-significantly activated the MOC re

111 speech-perception scores in quiet using the cochlear implant (CI).

112 al stimulation of the auditory nerve using a cochlear implant (CI).

113 ondition may be considered as candidates for cochlear implant (CI).

114 Cochlear implants (CI) are one of the most successful tr

115 Although cochlear implants (CI) are the standard of care for prof

116 The performance of cochlear implants (CI) in rehabilitating hearing depends

117 recise and repeatable measures for assessing cochlear-implant (CI) hearing.

118 as a method to improve speech reception for cochlear-implant (CI) users in reverberant environments

119 Cochlear-implant (CI) users rely on temporal envelope mo

120 earch interfaces to conduct experiments with cochlear-implant (CI) users.

121 in the phase-locking ability of brainstem of cochlear-implant (CI) users.

122 Cochlear implants (CIs) are neuroprostheses that partial

123 Cochlear implants (CIs) are neuroprosthetic devices that

124 Current cochlear implants (CIs) are semi-implantable devices wit

125 Cochlear implants (CIs) do not offer the same level of e

126 Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to be effective

127 Cochlear implants (CIs) have enabled hundreds of thousan

128 Cochlear implants (CIs) have revolutionised treatment of

129 Cochlear implants (CIs) have transformed hearing restora

130 Despite the success of cochlear implants (CIs) in human populations, most users

131 Bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) might promote development of bin

132 Cochlear implants (CIs) partially restore hearing to the

133 Although bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) provide improvements in sound lo

134 Cochlear implants (CIs) provide sound and speech sensati

135 Here, we found adult users of cochlear implants (CIs) self-reported listening effort d

136 Providing bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) simultaneously promotes symmetri

137 Many profoundly deaf people wearing cochlear implants (CIs) still face challenges in everyda

138 igh-frequency hearing loss as candidates for cochlear implants (CIs).

139 )] for deaf patients who cannot benefit from cochlear implants (CIs).

140 king, is proposed and evaluated for use with cochlear implants (CIs).

141 ncerning stochastic resonance, we advocate a cochlear implant coding strategy in which noise is delib

142 research in the area of noise reduction for cochlear implants could follow.

143 Daily hours of sound were captured by the cochlear implant datalogging system and categorized into

144 Children whose cochlear implant datalogs were captured between February

145 The history of cochlear implants dates back to 1957, when Djourno and E

146 To restore hearing sensation, cochlear implants deliver electrical pulses to the audit

147 in the individuals treated; hearing aids or cochlear implants did not improve communication skills.

148 These results suggest that standard analogue cochlear implants do not evoke the patterns of neural ex

149 ion, the acoustic information delivered by a cochlear implant does not convey the same level of acous

150 chlear electrical stimulation delivered by a cochlear implant during maturation.

151 y used datalogs collected from children with cochlear implants during clinical visits to a tertiary p

152 ES-treated animals were implanted with a cochlear implant electrode and chronically stimulated.

153 s option depends on the insertion of a short cochlear implant electrode into the basal region of the

154 , our work could promote the use of standard cochlear implant electrodes to study cognitive neuroscie

155 Cochlear implants enable improvements in speech percepti

156 demographic factors (onset of deafness, age, cochlear implant experience).

157 eering, anatomic, and physiologic aspects of cochlear implants, focusing on their psychophysical, spe

158 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Cochlear Implant for Children and One Deaf Ear study was

159 up will reveal the long-term outcomes of the cochlear implant for other skills, the current results w

160 aring aids, assistive listening devices, and cochlear implants for severe hearing loss.

161 Analogous to the cochlear implants for some forms of deafness, these devi

162 into neural stimulation prosthetics, such as cochlear implants for the deaf, with very high spatial r

163 eaf from birth and who subsequently received cochlear implants for their ability to fuse the auditory

164 rts of bacterial meningitis in patients with cochlear implants for treatment of hearing loss.

165 In contrast, children with SSD without a cochlear implant had worse grammar scores than the group

166 d reveal that electrical stimulation through cochlear implants has a restorative effect on synaptic o

167 their early development about 50 years ago, cochlear implants have been well received and beneficial

168 Cochlear implants have dramatically changed the treatmen

169 the sizeable global burden of hearing loss, cochlear implants have poor penetrance among eligible he

170 Cochlear implants have provided hearing to more than 120

171 Cochlear implants have restored hearing in more than 200

172 unctions, such as deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants, have ushered in a new treatment era f

173 echnologies to enhance other devices such as cochlear implants, hearing protectors, and cellular phon

174 emonstrate that electrical stimulation via a cochlear implant in chemically deafened cats preserves P

175 by intracochlear electric stimulation using cochlear implants in adult hearing controls and deaf cat

176 Barriers to the use of cochlear implants in children with profound deafness inc

177 ay underlie reduced processing of input from cochlear implants in congenitally deaf adults.

178 potential for auditory rehabilitation using cochlear implants in individual subjects.

179 d channel noise might be exploited by future cochlear implants in order to improve the temporal repre

180 Cochlear implants in prelingually deafened children perm

181 Cochlear implants in profoundly deaf children have a pos

182 Second, children receiving two cochlear implants in the same surgery maintained normal-

183 ion involving 4264 children who had received cochlear implants in the United States between January 1

184 The use of cochlear implants in young children was associated with

185 his study shows that speech perception via a cochlear implant is unaffected by the inherent temporal

186 sult, speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants is typically poorer and more effortful

187 300,000 deaf people have been fitted with a cochlear implant; it has become a standard clinical proc

188 widely among the implanted population, many cochlear implant listeners can use the telephone and fol

189 this reduced spatial release occurs because cochlear implant listeners cannot effectively attend to

190 kground noise, the speech intelligibility of cochlear implant listeners is more susceptible to backgr

191 In cochlear implant listeners, spatial release from masking

192 cognition was measured in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners; cochlear implant subjects we

193 50 adult patients with at least 6 months of cochlear implant listening experience and normal cochlea

194 To simulate cochlear implant listening, stimuli were vocoded with tw

195 the musical sound quality assessment method, Cochlear Implant-MUltiple Stimulus with Hidden Reference

196 ing in adult listeners with right unilateral cochlear implants (n=20) and matched controls (n=18) usi

197 air cells can be circumvented partially by a cochlear implant, no routine treatment is available for

198 nt interventions (primarily hearing aids and cochlear implants) offer imperfect and often unsuccessfu

199 However, modern hearing aids and cochlear implants often disrupt critical binaural hearin

200 ople with hearing loss, including those with cochlear implants, often experience great difficulty in

201 es showed that electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant only partially prevents SG degeneration

202 s) on how children with hearing loss wearing cochlear implants or hearing aids appraise self-esteem.

203 Fifty children with hearing loss wearing cochlear implants or hearing aids participated (Mean age

204 coder to approximate spectral degradation in cochlear implants, or low-pass filtered.

205 ss (HL) and vestibular impairment have worse cochlear implant outcomes compared with those without ve

206 ng prospective, longitudinal cohort study on cochlear implant outcomes in older adults.

207 For all children with cochlear implants, outcomes of adult speech perception t

208 ion with intensive aural rehabilitation with cochlear implant patients are also described.

209 on of NTs for improved clinical outcomes for cochlear implant patients.

210 erpreting electric field imaging profiles of cochlear implant patients.

211 Although individuals fitted with cochlear implants perform well in quiet, in the presence

212 The poorer cochlear implant performance is most likely attributable

213 gnificantly worsened mean normal-hearing and cochlear implant performance.

214 electro-tactile stimulation (ETS) to improve cochlear implant performance.

215 ves in the search for future improvements in cochlear-implant performance.

216 Children with SSD and a cochlear implant performed in line with their peers with

217 5-percentage point increase in percentage of cochlear implants performed at age 2 years or younger (b

218 Both subjects had cochlear implants placed with restoration of hearing thr

219 function, such that without early childhood cochlear-implant, profoundly deaf children do not develo

220 Children were recruited from the Cochlear Implant Program at a tertiary pediatric hospita

221 Image-guided cochlear implant programming has emerged as a potential

222 n the 34 participants using the image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy.

223 Cochlear implant programming using a computed tomography

224 t electrical stimulation of the cochlea by a cochlear implant promotes increased survival of spiral g

225 Cochlear implants provide access to the speech signal in

226 Present day cochlear implants provide excellent speech understanding

227 and the coding schemes currently employed in cochlear implants provide little or no representation of

228 Cochlear implants provide sound perception to deaf child

229 ts such as reduced educational expenses, the cochlear implant provided a savings of $53,198 per child

230 itation programs for hearing aid wearers and cochlear implant recipients have recently been developed

231 ICIPANTS: Retrospective case series of adult cochlear implant recipients who underwent preoperative c

232 e suggest that GDNF/ES combined treatment in cochlear implant recipients will improve auditory percep

233 -perfect performance, whereas listeners with cochlear implant recognized less than half of the target

234 plained by the poorer spectral resolution of cochlear implants, relative to the normally functioning

235 upt the cochleotopic organization upon which cochlear implants rely to impart pitch cues.

236 on of hearing in deaf subjects by means of a cochlear implant requires a healthy spiral ganglion cell

237 Cochlear-implant research has also matured as a field, a

238 Cochlear implants restore hearing cues in the severe-pro

239 Cochlear implants restore hearing in patients with sever

240 Deaf people who use cochlear implants show surprisingly poor sensitivity to

241 tegy in which noise is deliberately added to cochlear implant signals.

242 cutoff frequency (50 vs 500 Hz) in acoustic cochlear implant simulations.

243 nsorineural hearing loss requiring bilateral cochlear implants, skeletal defects, including kyphoscol

244 tes (i.e., higher "limiting rates") than did cochlear-implant stimulation.

245 rmal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners; cochlear implant subjects were tested using their clinic

246 tic and electric stimulation in eight actual cochlear-implant subjects who had normal or residual low

247 different modulations in normal-hearing and cochlear-implant subjects.

248 loss as measured by audiologic testing; and cochlear implant success as measured by pediatric and ad

249 ron counts are normal, a key requirement for cochlear implant success.

250 onditions and hearing impairments, including cochlear implant-supported hearing.

251 timing of infectious complications following cochlear implant surgery among patients in 5 US states b

252 Recent advances in cochlear implant technology have focused renewed attenti

253 ineering project entitled Advancing Binaural Cochlear Implant Technology-ABCIT-as well as research sp

254 percutaneous power delivery was derived from cochlear implant technology.

255 considerable potential for implementation in cochlear-implant technology.

256 after a period of electrical stimulation via cochlear implants the proportion of inhibitory inputs re

257 To assess suitability for a cochlear implant, the patient underwent MRI of the tempo

258 To assess suitability for a cochlear implant, the patient underwent MRI of the tempo

259 restoration of auditory nerve activity by a cochlear implant, the processing of time-varying signals

260 cCMV-related hearing loss, and preventing 1 cochlear implant; the incremental reduction in cases of

261 erative sprouting may improve the outcome of cochlear implant therapy in patients with hereditary dea

262 s of children and adults receiving bilateral cochlear implants, there is an urgent need for assessmen

263 rther used a recording circuit embedded in a cochlear implant to directly and objectively measure the

264 f spectral information delivered through the cochlear implant to improve outcomes.

265 from hearing aids, middle ear implants, and cochlear implants to achieve a total solution to the ent

266 omprised children with hearing loss who used cochlear implants to hear.

267 Cochlear implants transmit degraded information, specifi

268 Cochlear implant use, for those with moderate to profoun

269 ss, and (3) potentially suppressed by active cochlear implants used for hearing restoration.

270 ould substantially improve outcomes for both cochlear implant users and for those unable to access co

271 inaural deprivation typically experienced by cochlear implant users degrades neural ITD sensitivity,

272 Human bilateral cochlear implant users do poorly on tasks involving inte

273 Cochlear implant users experience difficulties controlli

274 One way to provide pitch information to cochlear implant users is through amplitude-modulation r

275 Cochlear implant users on average did not show sensitivi

276 Nine cochlear implant users rated the extent to which the son

277 ere found despite the fact that three of the cochlear implant users showed the expected sensitivity t

278 the ability of normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users to recognize vocal emotions.

279 d, 2-period crossover study including 26 new cochlear implant users was performed over a 6-month peri

280 hether amplitude-modulation rate can provide cochlear implant users with pitch information adequate f

281 nce imaging or magnetoencephalography (e.g., cochlear implant users).

282 In ten cochlear implant users, a tactile aid was applied to the

283 For cochlear implant users, combined electro-acoustic stimul

284 ed temporal information for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users.

285 ffective strategy to improve hearing in some cochlear implant users.

286 ith neurotrophic factors may be relevant for cochlear implant users.

287 also provide a potential explanation for why cochlear-implant users and hearing-impaired listeners ex

288 eveloped to simulate input received by human cochlear-implant users.

289 antify musical sound quality deficits in CI (cochlear implant) users with respect to high-frequency l

290 Hearing rehabilitation with hearing aids or cochlear implants was generally associated with improved

291 n with severe to profound hearing loss using cochlear implants were studied because their devices mon

292 This finds applications in cochlear implants where ultra-low power consumption is a

293 their work on the development of the modern cochlear implant, which bestows hearing to individuals w

294 This is achieved by an electronic device, a cochlear implant, which is surgically inserted into the

295 ual findings have important implications for cochlear implants, which currently only provide ENV; how

296 Owing to the success of cochlear implants, which offer partial recovery of audit

297 nal cohort study included adults receiving a cochlear implant with a preoperative hearing threshold n

298 with treatments limited to hearing aids and cochlear implants with no FDA-approved drugs.

299 Results indicate that cochlear implants working independently in each ear do n

300 of the congenitally deaf auditory system via cochlear implants would restore the endbulb synapses to