2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The floating mass transducer at the round window: Direct transmission or bone conduction?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

5
29
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
5
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas in Arnold et al [2010] the standard deviation for the floating mass transducer coupled directly to the RW membrane is at least 12 dB above the corner frequency of the floating mass transducer, 1.5 kHz, the 'standard coupling' in our experiments leads to a reproducible performance up to at least 3 kHz, as evidenced by the flat frequency response and a standard deviation of approximately 5 dB in the frequency range of up to 3 kHz. The most likely reason for that difference is that Arnold et al [2010] performed an implantation through a posterior tympanotomy in human whole head preparations, thus simulating a clinical setting. In that approach, the access to the RW can most likely not be controlled as tightly as in our experiments, where angle and location of the actuator as well as the resection of the RW niche could be controlled very accurately.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 41%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Whereas in Arnold et al [2010] the standard deviation for the floating mass transducer coupled directly to the RW membrane is at least 12 dB above the corner frequency of the floating mass transducer, 1.5 kHz, the 'standard coupling' in our experiments leads to a reproducible performance up to at least 3 kHz, as evidenced by the flat frequency response and a standard deviation of approximately 5 dB in the frequency range of up to 3 kHz. The most likely reason for that difference is that Arnold et al [2010] performed an implantation through a posterior tympanotomy in human whole head preparations, thus simulating a clinical setting. In that approach, the access to the RW can most likely not be controlled as tightly as in our experiments, where angle and location of the actuator as well as the resection of the RW niche could be controlled very accurately.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 41%
“…However, current publications [Baumgartner et al, 2010;Boeheim et al, 2010;Colletti et al, 2006;Colletti et al, 2009;Cuda et al, 2009;Frenzel et al, 2009;Kiefer and Staudenmaier, 2010;Linder et al, 2009;Streitberger et al, 2009;Wollenberg et al, 2007] reveal a considerable variability regarding the degree of hearing restoration. To approach this issue, different methods of coupling an actuator to the RW membrane have been investigated in human temporal bone experiments [Arnold et al, 2010;Nakajima et al, 2010]. Experiments included variations such as different orientation, intervening materials between actuator and membrane, and overlaying materials in order to increase the mechanical source impedance of the actuator at low frequencies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Combining VSB with ossicular chain reconstruction may represent an elegant surgical solution in these cases. The floating mass transducer (FMT) can be positioned in different ways depending on the ossicular chain status, the placement in the RW being highly effective if a stable coupling to the membrane is insured [Arnold et al, 2010;Nakajima et al, 2010]. The transcanal approach has also been recently described in order to increase the adaptability of VSB to various situations [Bruschini et al, 2009;Foyt et al, 2006].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the force-to-input voltage transfer function of the Baha device is not amplitude-independent for stimulation levels below -30 dBV rms , we used the Baha implant reproduce a clinical situation. From the result of a previous study, we can estimate that our stimulation steps roughly covered a clinically relevant range from 20 dB HL to 70 dB HL [1]. Figure 1 shows the stimulation force independent transfer function V/F for CP, ST, and RW: the average magnitude difference of the LDV measurements between the stimulation at -20, -30 or -40 dBV rms is near zero, indicating a linear behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%