Free Access
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 21, Number 2, Février 2005
Page(s) 190 - 197
Section Dossier technique
Published online 15 February 2005
  1. Gold T. Hearing. The physical basis of the action of the cochlea. Proc R Soc Edinburgh Biol Sci 1948; 135 : 492–8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Erminy M, Bonfils P, Trotoux J. Otospongiose. Encycl Med Chir, Elsevier, Paris, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie 20-195-A-10, 1996, 12 p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Morgon A. L’aide auditive. Encycl Med Chir, Elsevier, Paris, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie 20-185-E-10,1999, 11 p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bille M, Parving A. Expectations about hearing aids : demographic and audiological predictors. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 : 481–8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 : 176–86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Moore BC, Huss M, Vickers DA, et al. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 2000; 34 : 205–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mom T, Avan P, Gilain L. Atteintes centrales de l’audition. Encycl Med Chir, Elsevier, Paris, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie 20-184-A-10,2001, 10 p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Martini A, Mazzoli M, Rosignoli M, et al. Hearing in the elderly : a population study. Audiology 2001; 40 : 285–93. [Google Scholar]
  9. Demanez L, Demanez JP. Central auditory processing assessment. Acta Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Belg 2003; 57 : 243–52. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sterkers O, Boucarra D, Labassi S, et al. A middle ear implant, the Symphonix Vibrant soundbridge : retrospective study of the first 125 patients implanted in France. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 : 427–36. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kasic JF, Fredrickson JM. The otologics MET ossicular stimulator. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001; 34 : 501–13. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dauman R, Carbonnière B, Soriano V, et al. Implants cochléaires chez l’adulte et l’enfant. Encycl Med Chir, Elsevier, Paris, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie 20-185-D-10,1998, 12 p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen NL. Cochlear implant candidacy and surgical considerations. Audiol Neurotol 2004; 9 : 197–202. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hamzavi J, Pok SM, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner WD. Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 : 61–5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Muller J, Schon F, Helms J. Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2002; 23 : 198–206. [Google Scholar]
  16. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Barton GR, Bloor KE. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128 : 1255–62. [Google Scholar]
  17. Vaneecloo FM, Hanson JN, Laroche C, et al. Prosthetic rehabilitation of unilateral anakusis. Study with stereoaudiometry. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2000; 117 : 410–7. [Google Scholar]
  18. Niparko JK, Cox KM, Lustig LR. Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 : 73–8. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sellick PM, Patuzzi R, Johnstone BM. Measurement of basilar membrane motion in the guinea pig using the Mossbauer technique. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72 : 131–41. [Google Scholar]
  20. Casenave A, Mondain M, Frachet B, Hamann C, Sterkers O. Les surdités : de la prothèse à l’implant. Les monographies du CCA. Paris : Éditions Amplifon, 2002. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.