Institution
Cochlear Limited
Company•Sydney, New South Wales, Australia•
About: Cochlear Limited is a company organization based out in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cochlear implant & Hearing loss. The organization has 1290 authors who have published 1479 publications receiving 33109 citations. The organization is also known as: кохлеарные Americas & COCHLEAR LIMITED.
Topics: Cochlear implant, Hearing loss, Speech perception, Hearing aid, Implant
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Current data are not sufficient enough to support the use of CQ and HCQ as therapy for COVID-19, but considering the growing demand for these two drugs and the number of people around the world who have taken and will take CQand HCQ, it must necessarily consider the clinical and social impact of long term audiological side effects.
13 citations
•
22 Jan 2009TL;DR: In this paper, a method for fitting to a recipient a cochlear prosthesis having a sound processor that processes received sound in accordance with a MAP, the method comprises providing, by the hearing prosthesis, combinations of voice prompts and test stimuli for testing values of an element of the MAP; receiving from the recipient an indication of which of said values are desirable; and revising the MAP with the desired value for the tested element.
Abstract: A method for fitting to a recipient a cochlear prosthesis having a sound processor that processes received sound in accordance with a MAP, the method comprises providing, by the hearing prosthesis, combinations of voice prompts and test stimuli for testing values of an element of the MAP; receiving from the recipient an indication of which of said values are desirable; and revising the MAP with the desired value for the tested element. A neural-stimulating device for stimulating nerve cells of a recipient is provided.
13 citations
••
TL;DR: A relatively low incidence of electrode failures were recorded for the Nucleus devices of these recipients, and electrode impedance dropped for all array types after 8 to 12 years of device use.
Abstract: Objective: This study assessed the prevalence of electrode failures and electrode impedance measures in Nucleus cochlear implants around initial activation (an average of 16 days after surgery) and after 8 to 12 years of device use. Design: Retrospective data from the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic was collated and analysed. Study sample: Included in this study were 232 adults, all of whom were implanted at the clinic between March 1998 and August 2005. Results: Overall 0.5% of electrodes failed over the entire test period, with 5.6% of devices showing one or more electrode failure. The majority of these failures were recorded by initial activation. The numbers of electrode failures have decreased over time with array type, such that no failures were recorded with the currently available Contour Advance array. Array type was shown to affect electrode impedance at both time points, with the Contour and Contour Advance arrays having significantly higher absolute values than the Banded array. Howe...
13 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that deeper insertion of a newly designed, deeply inserted, cochlear implant electrode could increase pitch range for at least some coChlear implant recipients, and could hence potentially increase group performance.
Abstract: In this short communication, we evaluate the place-pitch relation of a newly designed, deeply inserted, cochlear implant electrode. The insertion depths ranged from 471° to 662°. Pitch perception was measured in eight subjects with monopolar stimulation on each electrode contact at intensities of 50% and 80% of the dynamic range. We observed a monotonic reduction of pitch estimate with insertion depth. For about half of the subjects, a flattening of the pitch estimate at the basal end of the electrode was seen, while for the other half, pitch continued to decrease monotonically up to the most apical part of the array. We conclude that deeper insertion could increase pitch range for at least some cochlear implant recipients, and could hence potentially increase group performance.
12 citations
••
TL;DR: This is a retrospective study of 10 patients (11 ears) out of 132 cochlear implant patients of the Cambridge co-lear implant programme and the pitfalls of implant surgery re-examined in the light of the experience.
Abstract: This is a retrospective study of 10 patients (11 ears) out of 132 cochlear implant patients of the Cambridge cochlear implant programme. These patients have all been explanted. Individual problems have been studied, relevant literature reviewed and the pitfalls of implant surgery re-examined in the light of our experience.
12 citations
Authors
Showing all 1293 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Marc Moonen | 66 | 796 | 17837 |
Robert K. Shepherd | 59 | 255 | 10679 |
Matthew W. Kelley | 53 | 141 | 9657 |
Frank R. Lin | 51 | 211 | 12431 |
Peter S. Roland | 47 | 239 | 7660 |
Peter J. Blamey | 47 | 208 | 7316 |
Richard C. Dowell | 46 | 192 | 7104 |
Olivier Sterkers | 46 | 356 | 8162 |
Blake C. Papsin | 46 | 240 | 6712 |
Stephen O'Leary | 45 | 238 | 6841 |
Karl Hörmann | 44 | 379 | 7001 |
Geoffrey A. Manley | 44 | 183 | 6184 |
Karen A. Gordon | 43 | 135 | 4594 |
Hugh J. McDermott | 43 | 146 | 5254 |
David M. Baguley | 43 | 240 | 6533 |