A comparison of round-window and transtympanic promontory electric stimulation in cochlear implant candidates

We compared within-subjects electrical thresholds and dynamic ranges obtained with direct round-window and transtympanic promontory stimulation carried out preoperatively in 12 patients who were candidates for a cochlear implant. Square waves with frequencies of 50, 100, 200, and 400 Hz were deliver...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEar and hearing Vol. 13; no. 5; p. 294
Main Authors Kileny, P R, Zwolan, T A, Zimmerman-Phillips, S, Kemink, J L
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.10.1992
Subjects
Adult
Aged
Audiometry, Pure-Tone
Auditory Threshold
Cochlea - physiopathology
Cochlear Implants
Electric Stimulation
Electrodes
Female
Hearing Loss, Bilateral
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - physiopathology
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - rehabilitation
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Round Window, Ear
Tympanic Membrane
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:We compared within-subjects electrical thresholds and dynamic ranges obtained with direct round-window and transtympanic promontory stimulation carried out preoperatively in 12 patients who were candidates for a cochlear implant. Square waves with frequencies of 50, 100, 200, and 400 Hz were delivered in a 50% duty cycle to both sites in each patient. With the exception of threshold at 50 Hz (promontory thresholds were lower than round-window thresholds), there were no statistically significant differences for either thresholds or dynamic ranges between the two sites of stimulation. There was a general trend for round-window thresholds to be lower and dynamic ranges larger, especially for the higher frequencies of stimulation. Mean threshold slopes for the two sites of stimulation were nearly identical.
ISSN:0196-0202
DOI:10.1097/00003446-199210000-00006