Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 859 items :

  • "cochlear implant" x
Clear All

Introduction The introduction of cochlear implants has made it possible to activate auditory pathways and to minimize the effects of stimulus deprivation on the auditory nervous system, allowing sounds to reach the brain [1, 2]. There is a sensitive period that is the optimal time for implantation, while maturation of the auditory pathways is maximally plastic. Cortical potentials are an objective measure of the development and plasticity of the auditory cortical pathways [3, 4]. The benefits of binaural hearing are widely reported in studies of children

, s. XV–XIII. Bergman B., Engberg-Pedersen E. (2010). Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries . [W:] D. Brentari (ed.). Sign Languages . Cambridge, s. 74–94. Biernath K.R., Refhuis J., Whitney C.G., Mann E.A., Costa P., Eichwald J., Boyle C. (2006). Bacterial meningitis among children with cochlear implants beyond 24 months after implantation . “Pediatrics” 117 (2), s. 284–289. Blume S. (2010). The Artificial Ear. Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness . New Brunswick. Boyes Braem P., Rathmann Ch. (2010). Transmission of sign languages in

J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2012;23(3):103–107 © 2012 by Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • Boston. DOI 10.1515/jbcpp-2012-0032 No changes in cochlear implant mapping and audiometric parameters in adolescence Miriam Geal-Dor 1,2, *, Cahtia Adelman 1,2 , Miriam Adler 1 , Leah Fostick 3 and Haya Levi 1,2 1 Speech and Hearing Center , Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem , Israel 2 Department of Communication Disorders , Hadassah Academic College, Jerusalem , Israel 3 Department of Communication Disorders , Ariel University Center

References 1. Bishop CE, Eby TL. The current status of audiologic rehabilitation for profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:552-556. 2. Brito RD, Bittencourt AG, Tsuji RK, Magnan J, Bento RF. Cochlear implantation through the middle fossa: an anatomic study for a novel technique. Acta Otolaryngol. 2013;133(9):905-909. 3. Handzel O, Wang H, Fiering J, et al. Mastoid cavity dimensions and shape: method of measurement and virtual fitting of implantable devices. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14(5):308-314. 4. Todd NW. Cochlear implantation

-impaired child. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 1989. Pruszewicz A. [An outline of clinical audiology]. Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Science Press, Poznan, 2002. Polish. Stieler O. Investigation on relationship between the subjective and objective response of auditory pathway in children with cochlear implant. Polish J Environ Stud. 2006; 15(4A): 103-105. Stieler O, Sekula A, Komar D. Application of Sound Engineering in Detection Tests for Children below the Age 3 Annual Meeting of American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2008

Introduction In recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have become a routine and effective treatment for severe or profound hearing loss. All currently available commercial CI devices use an external ear-level processor to detect and process speech and environmental sounds, which then transmits power and coded stimulation instructions to a surgically implanted “cochlear stimulator” (ICS) embedded in the temporal bone, using a transcutaneous radio-frequency link across intact skin. In turn, the ICS decodes these signals and delivers appropriate current pulses to an

Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems 8(3),2012, pp. 267-286 ©Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland doi: 10.2478/bams-2012-0022 FROM COCHLEAR IMPLANTS TO BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES RYSZARD TADEUSIEWICZ, PAWEŁ ROTTER AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland e-mail: ABSTRACT In this article two groups of technologies based on connecting a medical device to the human brain are presented. The first group exploits the existing nerves, like the cochlear implant where

-Bensaid, L. and O. Bat-El. 2004. "The development of the prosodic word in the speech of a hearing-impaired child with a cochlear implant device". Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders 2. 187-206. Ben-David, A. 2001. Language acquisition and Phonological theory: Universal and variable processes across children and across languages. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.) [In Hebrew.] Bennett, S. 1981. "Vowel formant frequency characteristics of preadolescent males and females". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67. 231-238. Bernhardt, B

References 1. Mo B, Lindbaek M, Harris S. Cochlear implants and quality of life: A prospective study. Ear Hear. 2005; 26:186-94. 2. Morera C, Sainz M, Cavalle L, Dela Torre A, Colaboradores: Anderson I, D’Haese P. Speech understanding in post-lingual adults with cochlear implants. Acta Otorinolaringol Esp. 2004; 55: 201-5. 3. Ribari O, Kustel M, Faras Z. Cochlear implants in children. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1996; 48: 127-30. 4. Calvert D, Silverman R. Speech and deafness. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1983. 5. Gantz BJ, Tyler R

Introduction A suitable cochlear implant (CI) candidate presents severe or profound deafness and no general contraindications for surgery (1). It has been found that some psychological aspects, such as motivation, can determine therapeutic outcomes, in terms of adaptability and perseverance in the rehabilitation process (2). This process embraces the concept of therapeutic compliance: an active disease management focused not merely on medications but also on other clinical situations such as the use of medical devices, self-care, self-directed exercises, or