2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of the middle ear anatomy on the performance of a membrane sensor in the incudostapedial joint gap

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results for the sensor element (Figure 8) can be confirmed by former investigations [15,16]. These previous studies were conducted on a sensor element of the same size as the whole transducer examined here.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results for the sensor element (Figure 8) can be confirmed by former investigations [15,16]. These previous studies were conducted on a sensor element of the same size as the whole transducer examined here.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Previous studies have also revealed additional contact points in seven out of ten temporal bones. The impact on sensor output was found to be quite low (about 5 dB) [16]. The effect on the transducer sensor is expected to be on a similar scale.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another type of a piezoelectric force transducer (H3) was presented by Koch et al in 2013 [ 55 ]. The study proposed a bidirectional membrane transducer, to be inserted at the incudostapedial joint (Fig 8 b) and to sense the force transmitted through this joint.…”
Section: Description Of Implantable Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
Fig. 10 Frequency responses sensitivity frequency responses of a the subcutaneous microphones A1 [ 9 ] and A2 [ 10 ] under patients’ skin, microphone A4 in a free field and under the skin [ 50 ]; b the electromagnetic sensor B [ 51 ] in human TBs (malleus), the capacitive microphone G in guinea pigs (ME cavity) [ 12 ], the piezoelectric force transducers H1 in cats (incus) [ 14 ] and H3 in a synthetic ossicular chain (incudostapedial joint) [ 55 ], the piezoelectric accelerometer I in TBs (incus) [ 73 ]; c the piezoresistive MEMS accelerometer D (incus) [ 16 ], the capacitive MEMS displacement sensors E1 [ 22 ] and E2 [ 20 ] in human TBS (umbo), the capacitive MEMS accelerometers F1 [ 21 ] and F2 [ 23 ] in human TBs (umbo), and the piezoelectric MEMS accelerometer J2 [ 18 ] in human TBs (umbo)
…”
Section: Sensor Performance Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation