1992Ear and HearingRequires access

A Comparison of Round-Window and Transtympanic Promontory Electric Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Candidates

Paul R. Kileny, Teresa A. Zwolan, Susan Zimmerman‐Phillips, John L. Kemink

Open publisher page 22 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 22 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Promontory, Cochlear implant, Round window, Audiology, Electric stimulation, Cochlear implantation, Window (computing), Implant

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Comparison of Round-Window and Transtympanic Promontory Electric Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Candidates — Research Paper | ScholarLens