Advertisement

Grundlagen der Elektrokochleographie im Hinblick auf Cochlear Implants

  • A. Mausolf
  • G. Hesse
Conference paper

Zusammenfassung

Für ein Cochlear Implant kommen nur Patienten in Betracht, deren Ertaubung im Innenohr liegt; Hörnerventaube sind nicht geeignet.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Aran J-M, Casals Y, Charlet De Sauvage R, Guilhaume A, Erre J-P (1980) Electrophysiological monitoring of the cochlea during and after total destruction of the organ of Corti. Acta Otol 89: 376–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battmer RD, Lehnhardt E, Laszig R (1986) Promontoriumstest und Elektrokochleografie im Hinblick auf die Indikation zum Cochlear Implant. HNO 34: 139–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brugge JF, Anderson DJ, Hind JE, Rose JE (1969) Time structure of discharges in single auditory nerve fibres of the squirrel monkey in response to complex periodic sound. J Neurophysiol 32: 386–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dallos P (1972) Cochlear potentials. A status report. Audiology 11: 29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dallos P, Billone JD, Wang-Yang Chang & Raynor S (1972) Cochlear inner and outer hair cells: functional differences. Science 177: 356–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dallos P, Cheatham MA (1976) Production of cochlear potentials by inner and outer hair cells. J Acoust Soc Am 60 (2): 510–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis H, Gernandt BE, Riesco-MacClure JS (1950) Threshold of action potentials in ear of Guinea pig. J Neurophysiol 13: 73–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eggermont JJ (1974) Basic principles for electrocochleography. Acta Otolaryng (Suppl) 316: 716Google Scholar
  9. Eggermont JJ, Odenthal DW (1974) Methods in electrocochleography. Acta Otolaryng (Suppl) 316: 17–24Google Scholar
  10. Evans EF (1975) The sharpening of cochlear frequency selectivity in the normal and abnormal cochlea. Audiology 14: 419–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fromm B, Nylen CO, Zotterman Y (1935) Studies in the mechanisms of the Weyer and Bray effect. Acta Otolaryng 22: 477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson, WPR (1978) Essentials of clinical electric response audiometry. Churchill Livingston, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray, RF (1985) Cochlear Implants. Croom Helm, London & Sydney College-Hill Press, Inc, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  14. Kumagami H, Nishido H (1977) Diagnostic significance of summating potentials in sensorineural deafness. ORL 39: 139–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamm H, Lehnhardt E, Lamm K (1984) Instrumental perforation of the round window. Acta Otolaryngol 98: 454–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehnhardt E (1987) Praktische Audiometrie. Thieme, Stuttgart 6. Aufl.Google Scholar
  17. Tasaki I, Davis H, Legouix JP (1952) The space time pattern of the cochlear microphonic (guinea pig) as recorded by differential electrodes. J Acoust Soc Amer 24: 502–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teas DC, Eldredge DH, Davis H (1962) Cochlear responses to acoustic transients: An interpretation of whole nerve action potentials. J Acoust Soc Amer 34: 1438–1459Google Scholar
  19. Weyer EG, Bray CW (1930) Action currents in the auditory nerve in response to acoustical stimulation. Proc Nat Acad Sci (Wash) 16: 344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whitfield IC, Ross HF (1965) Cochlear microphonic and summating potentials and the outputs of individual hair cell generators. J Acoust Soc Amer 38: 126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yoshie, N (1968) Auditory nerve action potential response to clicks in man. Laryngoscope 78: 198–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Mausolf
    • 1
  • G. Hesse
    • 1
  1. 1.Hals-Nasen-OhrenklinikMedizinischen Hochschule HannoverHannover 61Deutschland

Personalised recommendations