113 / 162
111
5
REFERENCES
Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Etler CP: Utility of electrically evoked potentials in cochlear implant users;
inWaltzman SRT (ed): Cochlear Implants,
ed 2. New York, Thieme, 2006,
pp 96–107.
Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC, Adunka MC, Buchman CA: Is electric acoustic stimulation better than conventional cochlear implantation for
speech perception in quiet?
Otol Neurotol 2010;
31:1049–1054.
Allum JH, Greisiger R, Probst R: Relationship of intraoperative electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds to maximum comfortable
loudness levels of children with cochlear implants.
Int J Audiol 2002;
41:93–99.
Alvarez I, de la Torre A, Sainz M, Roldan C, Schoesser H, Spitzer P: Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of
electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor.
Ear Hear 2010;
31:134–145.
Bento RF, De Brito Neto RV, Castilho AM, Gomez MV, Sant’Anna SB, Guedes MC, Peralta CG: Psychoacoustic dynamic range and
cochlear implant speech-perception performance in Nucleus 22 users.
Cochlear Implants Int 2005;
6(suppl 1):31–34.
Bierer JA, Faulkner KF: Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single channel
thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
Ear Hear 2010;
31:247–258.
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowell RC, Hollow RD: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in
postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;
101: 342–348.
Bonnet RM, Boermans PP, Avenarius OF, Briaire JJ, Frijns JH: Effects of pulse width, pulse rate and paired electrode stimulation on
psychophysical measures of dynamic range and speech recognition in cochlear implants.
Ear Hear 2012;
33:489–496.
Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF: Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types
of hearing impairment.
Audiology 1995;
34: 260–284.
Botros A, Psarros C: Neural response telemetry reconsidered. I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear
implant fitting.
Ear Hear 2010;
31:367– 379.
Boyd PJ: Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL
COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Ear Hear 2006;
27:608–618.
Boyd PJ: Evaluation of simplified programs using the MED-EL C40+ cochlear implant.
Int J Audiol 2010;
49:527–534.
Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM: The relative value of predictive factors of cochlear implant performance depends on follow-up time; in Briaire JJ:
Cochlear implants from model to patients; thesis, Leiden, Leiden University, 2008,
pp 161–162.
Brown CJ: Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses.
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;
11:
383–387.
Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Fryauf-Bertschy H, Kelsay D, Gantz BJ: Intraoperative and postoperative electrically evoked auditory brain stem
responses in Nucleus cochlear implant users: implications for the fitting process.
Ear Hear 1994;
15:168–176.
Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Lopez SM, Abbas PJ: Relationship between EABR thresholds and levels used to program the CLARION speech
processor.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;
177:50–57.
Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J: The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to
program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults.
Ear Hear 2000;
21:151–163.
Cafarelli DD, Dillier N, Lai WK, et al: Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the
neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system.
Audiol Neurotol 2005;
10:105–116.
Caner G, Olgun L, Gultekin G, Balaban M: Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and
electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold.
Otol Neurotol 2007;
28:637–640.
Fayad JN, Makarem AO, Linthicum FH Jr: Histopathologic assessment of fibrosis and new bone formation in implanted human temporal
bones using 3D reconstruction.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;
141:247–252.
Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, Whiting BR, Chole RA, Neely GJ, Hullar TE, Skinner MW: Role of electrode placement as a
contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.
Otol Neurotol 2008;
29:920–928.
Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH: Linear mixed effects model; in Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH(eds): Applied Longitudinal