| Title |
Auditory Brainstem Implants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurotherapeutics, January 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.nurt.2007.10.068 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc S. Schwartz, Steven R. Otto, Robert V. Shannon, William E. Hitselberger, Derald E. Brackmann |
| Abstract |
The development of cochlear implantation has allowed the majority of patients deafened after the development of language to regain significant auditory benefit. In a subset of patients, however, loss of hearing results from destruction of the cochlear nerves, rendering cochlear implantation ineffective. The most common cause of bilateral destruction of the cochlear nerves is neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). The hallmark of this genetic disorder is the development of bilateral acoustic neuromas, the growth or removal of which causes deafness in most patients. Patients with NF2 may benefit from direct stimulation of the cochlear nucleus. We describe the development, use, and results of the auditory brainstem implant (ABI), which is typically implanted via craniotomy at the time of tumor removal. Most patients with the implant have good appreciation of environmental sounds, but obtain more modest benefit with regard to speech perception. The majority of patients make use of the implant to facilitate lip reading; some can, to varying degrees, comprehend speech directly. We discuss future directions in central implants for hearing, including the penetrating ABI, the use of ABI in nontumor patients, and the auditory midbrain implant. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 15% |
| Researcher | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 23% |
| Engineering | 23 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2014.
All research outputs
#5,447,195
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#570
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,040
of 168,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.