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 aches, such as determining compatibility for cochlear implants.

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

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

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

12 nd in congenitally deaf children fitted with cochlear implants.

13 ption in people with hearing impairments and cochlear implants.

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

15 ed approach to neurosensory restoration with cochlear implants.

16 lead to improved restoration of hearing with cochlear implants.

17 ocessing, and postsurgical rehabilitation in cochlear implants.

18 t with restoration of auditory function with cochlear implants.

19 ust auditory responsiveness elicited through cochlear implants.

20 r stimulation enables electrical hearing via cochlear implants.

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

22 ti-microphone noise reduction strategies for cochlear implants.

23 The cochlear implant, a microelectrode array that directly s

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

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

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

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

28 With the cochlear implant and the midbrain multielectrode arrays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Cochlear implants are highly successful neural prosthese

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

40 Cochlear implants are the first example of a neural pros

41 The cochlear implant arguably is the most successful neural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 Cochlear implants can partially restore auditory functio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 Cochlear implant (CI) speech performance is typically ev

71 Current cochlear implant (CI) strategies carry speech informatio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84 Cochlear implants (CIs) partially restore hearing to the

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

86 Providing bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) simultaneously promotes symmetri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 Cochlear implants have dramatically changed the treatmen

109 Cochlear implants have provided hearing to more than 120

110 Cochlear implants have restored hearing in more than 200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

118 Cochlear implants in prelingually deafened children perm

119 Cochlear implants in profoundly deaf children have a pos

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

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

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

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

124 300,000 deaf people have been fitted with a cochlear implant; it has become a standard clinical proc

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

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

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

128 In cochlear implant listeners, spatial release from masking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 The poorer cochlear implant performance is most likely attributable

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

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

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

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

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

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

148 Cochlear implants provide access to the speech signal in

149 Present day cochlear implants provide excellent speech understanding

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

151 Cochlear implants provide sound perception to deaf child

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 Cochlear implants restore hearing cues in the severe-pro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

171 Recent advances in cochlear implant technology have focused renewed attenti

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

173 percutaneous power delivery was derived from cochlear implant technology.

174 considerable potential for implementation in cochlear-implant technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

184 Cochlear implant users on average did not show sensitivi

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

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

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

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

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

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

191 For cochlear implant users, combined electro-acoustic stimul

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

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

194 ed temporal information for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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