2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? Part 2: On electrically evoked late auditory responses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 112 publications
(143 reference statements)
0
9
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In CI users, the LAEP has been recorded using electric stimuli presented through the CI electrode or acoustic stimuli presented in the sound fi eld (Brix & Gedlicka, 1991;Ponton et al, 1996;Eggermont et al, 1997;Sharma et al, 2000;Hoppe et al, 2001;Firszt et al, 2002;Kelly et al, 2005;Guiraud et al, 2007;Kileny, 2007). The LAEP in CI users with good speech perception has similar morphologies compared to that in normal hearing (NH) listeners.…”
Section: Sumariomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In CI users, the LAEP has been recorded using electric stimuli presented through the CI electrode or acoustic stimuli presented in the sound fi eld (Brix & Gedlicka, 1991;Ponton et al, 1996;Eggermont et al, 1997;Sharma et al, 2000;Hoppe et al, 2001;Firszt et al, 2002;Kelly et al, 2005;Guiraud et al, 2007;Kileny, 2007). The LAEP in CI users with good speech perception has similar morphologies compared to that in normal hearing (NH) listeners.…”
Section: Sumariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The intensity of the stimuli was set at 80 dB SPL, but participants were allowed to change the implant settings to insure that stimuli were presented at a loudness level of approximately 7 on a 0-10 point numerical scale (inaudible to too loud). Thus, each participant listened to the stimuli at the most comfortable listening level (Hoppe et al, 2001;Guiraud et al, 2007). This approach has been used in previous studies (Kelly et al, 2005).…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This latency was measured for each subset of recording electrodes. Such a wide time window was explored because of the high variability of N1 latency in cochlear implantees, something that appears to depend on the duration of deafness (Guiraud et al, 2007), the duration of implant use (Gordon et al, 2004), and the intensity of stimulation (Firszt et al, 2002). The N1 amplitude for each subset of electrodes was then measured as the average amplitude over a 30 ms time window around the corresponding peak latency.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Комплекс P 1 -N 1 -P 2 у взрослого регистрируется как на акустическую, так и на электрическую стимуляцию в окне 50-250 мс [3][4][5]8], хотя при прямой электрической стимуляции латентные периоды (ЛП) могут быть короче [8][9][10]. У взрослых пациентов с кохлеарными имплантами (КИ) пики P 1 , N 1 и P 2 имеют ЛП 40-80, 75-150 и 150-210 мс соответственно [8,10,11].…”
unclassified