Display options
Cite
Wilson BS. The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;3(4):200-210doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005.
Wilson, B. S. (2017). The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing. World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 3(4), 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005
Wilson, Blake S. "The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing." World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery vol. 3,4 (2017): 200-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005
Wilson BS. The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jan 03;3(4):200-210. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005. eCollection 2017 Dec. PMID: 29780963; PMCID: PMC5956133.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jan 03;3(4):200-210. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005. eCollection 2017 Dec.

The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing.

World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery

Blake S Wilson

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
  3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

PMID: 29780963 PMCID: PMC5956133 DOI: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.005

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cochlear implant has become the standard of care for severe or worse losses in hearing and indeed has produced the first substantial restoration of a lost or absent human sense using a medical intervention. However, the devices are not perfect and many efforts to narrow the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing are underway.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the present status of cochlear implants and to describe possibilities for improving them.

RESULTS: The present-day devices work well in quiet conditions for the great majority of users. However, not all users have high levels of speech reception in quiet and nearly all users struggle with speech reception in typically noisy acoustic environments. In addition, perception of sounds more complex than speech, such as most music, is generally poor unless residual hearing at low frequencies can be stimulated acoustically in conjunction with the electrical stimuli provided by the implant. Possibilities for improving the present devices include increasing the spatial specificity of neural excitation by reducing masking effects or with new stimulus modes; prudent pruning of interfering or otherwise detrimental electrodes from the stimulation map; a further relaxation in the criteria for implant candidacy, based on recent evidence from persons with high levels of residual hearing and to allow many more people to benefit from cochlear implants; and "top down" or "brain centric" approaches to implant designs and applications.

CONCLUSIONS: Progress in the development of the cochlear implant and related treatments has been remarkable but room remains for improvements. The future looks bright as there are multiple promising possibilities for improvements and many talented teams are pursuing them.

Keywords: Auditory prosthesis; Cochlear implant; Cochlear prosthesis; Deafness; Neural prosthesis

References

  1. Nat Med. 2013 Oct;19(10):1245-8 - PubMed
  2. Nat Neurosci. 2009 Jun;12(6):686-91 - PubMed
  3. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2012 Apr;129(2):98-103 - PubMed
  4. Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(2):105-12 - PubMed
  5. Hear Res. 2008 Aug;242(1-2):3-21 - PubMed
  6. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1997 Jan-Feb;59(1):23-35 - PubMed
  7. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):e63-9 - PubMed
  8. Ear Hear. 2002 Dec;23(6):540-52 - PubMed
  9. Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:107-11 - PubMed
  10. Natl Inst Health Consens Dev Conf Consens Statement. 1988 May 4;7(2):1-9 - PubMed
  11. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(3):127-31 - PubMed
  12. Ear Hear. 2002 Jun;23(3):198-206 - PubMed
  13. Neuroreport. 2002 Sep 16;13(13):1635-9 - PubMed
  14. Ear Hear. 2017 Nov/Dec;38(6):647-652 - PubMed
  15. Prog Brain Res. 2011;194:117-29 - PubMed
  16. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Sep;36(8):1331-7 - PubMed
  17. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013 Sep;21(5):820-9 - PubMed
  18. Ear Hear. 2010 Apr;31(2):186-94 - PubMed
  19. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):137-45 - PubMed
  20. Otol Neurotol. 2017 Sep;38(8):e224-e231 - PubMed
  21. Br J Audiol. 1997 Aug;31(4):205-25 - PubMed
  22. Otol Neurotol. 2004 Nov;25(6):958-68 - PubMed
  23. Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:188-99 - PubMed
  24. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002 Aug;45(4):783-8 - PubMed
  25. Ear Hear. 2008 Jan;29(1):33-44 - PubMed
  26. Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(4):247-60 - PubMed
  27. Ear Hear. 2007 Aug;28(4):524-41 - PubMed
  28. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Apr 23;6(233):233ra54 - PubMed
  29. Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(6):400-11 - PubMed
  30. Lancet Neurol. 2016 May;15(6):610-21 - PubMed
  31. Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:24-38 - PubMed
  32. Otol Neurotol. 2008 Jun;29(4):509-12 - PubMed
  33. Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:224-34 - PubMed
  34. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007 Jun;8(2):258-79 - PubMed

Publication Types