Risberg A, Agelfors E, Lindström B, Bredberg G
Department of Speech Communication and Music Acoustics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;469:156-63.
It has been difficult to explain the good speech understanding obtained by some cochlear implant patients fitted with a single-channel electrode and analog transmissions of the speech signal (Vienna/3M implant). It has also been difficult to explain the variation in results reported by different groups using the same implant. One hypothesis asserts that the above differences can be explained by the observation that electric stimulation with an implanted electrode might result in two different auditory sensations, the first resulting from the stimulation of the remaining hair cells (electrophonic component) and the second from the electric stimulation of the auditory nerve (electro-neural component). The two sensations are very different. As a result of different definitions of total deafness (functional or threshold definition), patients with remaining hair cells are operated on by some groups, but not by other groups. Some published results from different studies are discussed with reference to the above hypothesis and the possible consequences for the selection of the patients, the use of extra- or intracochlear electrodes, and the selection of the speech coding strategy are discussed.
对于一些佩戴单通道电极并采用语音信号模拟传输的人工耳蜗植入患者（维也纳/3M植入体）能获得良好的言语理解能力，一直难以作出解释。同样难以解释的是，不同研究小组使用同一植入体所报告的结果为何存在差异。一种假说认为，上述差异可以通过以下观察结果来解释：植入电极进行电刺激可能会产生两种不同的听觉感受，第一种是由残余毛细胞受到刺激产生的（电声成分），第二种是由听神经受到电刺激产生的（电神经成分）。这两种感受截然不同。由于对全聋的定义不同（功能定义或阈值定义），一些研究小组会对仍有残余毛细胞的患者进行手术，而其他小组则不会。本文参照上述假说讨论了不同研究已发表的一些结果，并探讨了其对患者选择、使用耳蜗外或耳蜗内电极以及言语编码策略选择可能产生的影响。
