Rates of Long‐term Cochlear Implant Use in Children

Contrera, Kevin J.; Choi, Janet S.; Blake, Caitlin R.; Betz, Joshua; Niparko, John K.; Lin, Frank R.

doi:10.1177/0194599814541629a278

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The major clinical concern related to retinal implants is that the functional level provided by these devices remains limited [27,[30][31][32][33]. This is well illustrated by the relatively low use reported for retinal prosthesis wearers (maximum 2-3 h/day; [29,31]) compared to the average for cochlear implant wearers (12 h/day; [34]). Implanted patients can, in the best cases, identify large and simple objects (e.g., light windows on a dark wall, dishes and cutlery) and use the rudimentary visual information provided by the device to improve their hand-eye coordination and mobility skills.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Designing artificial senses: steps from physiology to clinical implementation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our senses are the main information channels through which we perceive and interact with the world. Consequently, the physical and social functioning of patients suffering from severe sensory disabilities is limited on several levels. This has motivated the development of a novel therapeutic alternative: "artificial senses", more commonly known as sensory neuroprostheses.In order to restore lost function, sensory neuroprostheses attempt to take advantage of the information transfer pathway common to all senses: (i) transduction of the physical stimulus by sensory receptors, (ii) transmission of relevant information to primary sensory areas in the brain by sensory afferents, and (iii) analysis and integration of the information at multiple levels in the central nervous system. Neurosensory deficits might occur upon damage to any of the structures involved in this process. However, damage to the peripheral sensory receptor is often the cause of neurosensory loss. Most sensory neuroprostheses attempt to "replace" the malfunctioning or missing peripheral sensory organ by directly delivering basic sensory information to the brain using electrical currents. If the prosthesis is able to deliver enough consistent information, the brain will be able to correctly interpret it and useful rehabilitation can be achieved. This review presents the main challenges related to the development, implementation and translation to clinical practice of these devices: (i) sensory information needs to be efficiently delivered to specific neural targets (e.g., peripheral afferents or specific central nuclei); (ii) then the expected physiological response must be evoked and quantified; (iii) the restoration of basic sensory abilities can lead to useful rehabilitation in meaningful everyday activities; (iv) optimal prospects require specific rehabilitation therapy and lifelong medico-technical follow-up.To conclude, the current state and future of sensory neuroprostheses will be discussed. This will include current clinical and technical challenges, future prospects, and the potential of these devices to improve our fundamental knowledge of sensory physiology and neurosensory deficits.

show abstract

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Designing artificial senses: steps from physiology to clinical implementation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their institutional cohort of pediatric patients who were receiving CIs, Contrera et al demonstrated a linear association between the age of implantation and the risk of discontinuing regular CI use, increasing by 18.2% per year. The most common reasons for use for less than 8 hours per day were poor hearing benefit (53.2%) and social pressure (21.3%) …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common reasons for use for less than 8 hours per day were poor hearing benefit (53.2%) and social pressure (21.3%). 4 In a study of 48 prelingually deafened adults, Lammers et al analyzed self-reported subjective benefit from CI. Patients who either had no or some low-frequency residual hearing were more likely to report little or no benefit, which accounted for nearly half of the patients in the study.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%