Ana Sayfa
   
 
  Kulağın Anatomisi
  Sesi Algılama
 
  İletim Tipi İşitme Kaybı
  Sensorinöral İşitme Kaybı
  Sinirsel İşitme Kaybı (Nöral)
 
  Nedir?
  Nasıl Çalışır?
  Kimler Yararlanabilir?
  Yararları Nelerdir?
  Niçin Uygun Olmaya Bilir?
  Diğer Değerlendirmeler
 
  COMBI 40+ implant
  TEMPO+ Kulak Arkası Konuşma İşlemcisi
  CIS+ Konuşma İşleme Stratejisi
  Kanıtlanmış Sonuçlar
 
  Koklear implant Ekibine Başvuru
  Değerlendirmeler
  Operasyon
 
  İlk Sesler
  Takip Programı
  Kaynaklar

Kaynaklar

  1. Stoebich, et al, Comparison of performance of the MED-EL body worn speech processor CIS PRO+ with the new MED-EL BTE processor TEMPO+ in adults. Presented at the Second Cong. of Asia Pacific Symp. on Cochlear Implant and Rel. Sci., 1999.
  2. Helms, et. al.: Evaluation of Performance with the COMBI 40 Cochlear Implant in Adults: A Multicentric Clinical Study. ORL 1997; 59:23-35.
  3. Kiefer, et. al.: Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise with the CIS Speech Coding Strategy (MED-EL COMBI 40) Compared to the Multipeak and Spectral Peak Strategies (Nucleus). ORL 1996; 127-135.
  4. Teissl, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cochlear Implants: Compatibility and Safety Aspects, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 9:26-38 (1999)
  5. Teissl, et al. Cochlear Implants: In Vitro Investigation of Electromagnetic Interference at MR Imaging-Compatibility and Safety Aspects, Radiology, September 1998.
  6. Youssefzadeh, et al. MR Compatibility of MED-EL Cochlear Implants: Clinical Testing at 1.0 T, J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr 22(3:346-50) 1998
  7. Gstoettner, et al. Cochlear Implant Deep Electrode Insertion: Extent of Insertional Trauma. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1997; 117:274-277.
  8. Barbara, et al., Residual Hearing after Cochlear Implantation. Presented at the Second Cong. of Asia Pacific Symp. on Cochlear Implant and Rel. Sci., 1999.
  9. Wilson, et. al.: Better Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants, Nature 236-238 1991
  10. Wilson, et. al.: Comparative Studies of Speech Processing Strategies for Cochlear Implants, Laryngoscope 88: 1069-1077.
  11. Wilson, et al: First Quarterly Progress Report, Research Triangle Institute NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, 1995, page 14
  12. Wilson, et al: Third Quarterly Progress Report, Research Triangle Institute NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, 1996.
  13. Brill, et. al.: Optimization of Channel Number and Stimulation Rate for the Fast Continuous Interleaved Sampling Strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am. J. Otology, Inc.; 18: S7-10, 1997.
  14. International Standard ISO 5841- 2:2000(E), Implants for Surgery - Cardiac pacemakers - Part 2: Reporting of clinical performance of populations of pulse generators or leads.
  15. Dorman and Loizou. Changes in Speech Intelligibility as a Function of Time and Signal Processing Strategy for an Ineraid Patient Fitted with Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) Processors. Ear & Hearing 4:147-155, 1997.
  16. Pelizzone, et al. Within-Patient Longitudinal Speech Reception Measures with Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processors for Ineraid Implanted Subjects. Ear & Hearing 6:228-237, 1999.
  17. Schindler, et al: Clarion Patient Performance: An Update on the Clinical trials, Annals Of Ortology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Sept. 1995
  18. Helms J., et al: Presented at the Polizer Meeting (Zürich, 1999) on Multicentric evaluation of the new MED-EL TEMPO+ ear level speech processor for the COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implants.
  19. Arndt, et al: Within-Subject Comparison of Advanced Coding Strategies in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant, Cochlear Corp.
  20. Fishman K, et al: Speech Recognition as a Function of the number of Electrodes used in the SPEAK Cochlear Implant Processor. JSLHR; volume 40, 1201-1215, October 1997
  21. Wilson B: The Future of Cochlear Implants, British Journal of Audiology, 1997, 31, 205-225
  22. Wilson B, et. al.: New Processing Strategies in Cochlear Implantation, The American Journal of Otology, Volume 16, Number 5, September 1995
  23. J. Mueller, F. Schoen, J. Helms, University of Wuerzburg, presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the Polizer Society in Zürich (1999)
  24. Wilson B., et al.: Better Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants, Nature 236-238 1991
  25. Helms J et al., Comparison of the TEMPO+ Ear-level Speech Processor and the CIS PRO+ Body-Worn Processor in Adult MED-EL Cochlear Implant Users, ORL 2001; 63:31-40.
  26. Stöbich et al., Presented at the 2nd Congress of Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implant and Related Sciences, Comparison of performance of the MED-EL body worn speech processor CIS-PRO+ with the new MED-EL BTE-speech processor TEMPO+ in adults, April 1999.
  27. Anderson et al., Handling of the MED-EL TEMPO+ in Children, presented at the XXVI International Congress of Audiology, Melbourne, March 2002 The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, Volume 23, Number 2, 2002 Addendum.
  28. Jamieson L et al., Compatibility of the TEMPO+ Processor with Young Children, Presented at the British Cochlear Implant Group, Spring Meeting 2001.
  29. Jamieson L et al., An investigation into the use of a behind the ear speech processor, MED-EL TEMPO+ with very young children, presented at the First European Conference on Cochlear and Brainstem Implants & State-of-Art Symposium on Implantable Hearing Aids, Padova, September 2001