Cited by 37Hearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing Impairment and CommunicationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

History of Cochlear Implants and Auditory Brainstem Implants

Møller, Aage R.·2006·Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Abstract

Cochlear implants have evolved during the past 30 years from the single-electrode device introduced by Dr. William House, to the multi-electrode devices with complex digital signal processing that are in use now. This paper describes the history of the development of cochlear implants and auditory brainstem implants (ABIs). The designs of modern cochlear and auditory brainstem implants are described, and the different strategies of signal processing that are in use in these devices are discussed. The primary purpose of cochlear implants was to provide sound awareness in deaf individuals. Modern cochlear implants provide much more, including good speech comprehension, and even allow conversing on the telephone. ABIs that stimulate the cochlear nucleus were originally used only in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 who had lost hearing due to removal of bilateral vestibular schwannoma. In such patients, ABIs provided sound awareness and some discrimination of speech. Recently, similar degrees of speech discrimination as achieved with cochlear implants have been obtained when ABIs were used in patients who had lost function of their auditory nerve on both sides for other reasons such as trauma and atresia of the internal auditory meatus.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000094455

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Møller, A. R.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
Corresponding author
Møller, Aage R.
Venue
Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2006
Volume
64
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 0065-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-2847
OpenAlex
W1563077884
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.45
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
cochlear implants, auditory brainstem implant, history of cochlear implants, digital signal processing, cochlear nucleus stimulation, neurofibromatosis type 2, vestibular schwannoma, speech discrimination, deafness
MeSH terms
Cochlear Implants, Electrodes, Implanted, Hearing Loss, Sensorineural, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Patient Selection, Cochlear Implantation, Auditory Brain Stem Implants, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review