Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B Meyer

Publications and source records attributed to B Meyer.

474 records · Page 27Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

[Surgically implanted electronic apparatus for the rehabilitation of total deafness and deaf-mutism].

An electronic device for multichannel cochlear implant is now available in case of total deafness and deaf-muteness. Any surgical technic of electrodes implantation may use this prosthesis. It consists in two parts, an outside package and an implanted receptor. The external device cut the sound in eight channels, whose frequencies correspond to those of the telephon bands. These eight sinusoidal waves are changed in pulses whose frequency and duration depend on the intensity of the initial signal. All these informations are multiplexed and injected in a high frequency wave to an antenna. Electromagnetic induction supplies through the skin the implanted receptor with power and informations. This receptor is preoperatively connected to the electrodes. With this device and with phoniatric training some speech recognition, and in case of deaf-mute patients voice improvement, may be obtained in some months.

Cochlear Nerve↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Diagnostic significance of MEP elicited by electrical and magnetoelectric stimulation in acute/subacute supratentorial lesions.

Motor evoked potentials (MEP) elicited by transcranial electrical and magnetoelectric stimulation were examined prospectively in a total of 122 patients with supratentorial tumorous and nontumorous lesions in an acute/subacute neurosurgical setting. All patients had a hemiparesis contralateral to the lesion. It was the aim of our study to define the diagnostic significance of MEP with respect to superficial and deep localization of the lesions. To achieve this goal, MEP findings were correlated with the clinical motor status defining two categories: correct with pathological MEP, and false-negative with normal MEP. On the whole, we found correct results in 108 of 122 patients (88.5%) with electrical stimulation, and in 67 of 75 patients (89.3%) with magnetoelectric stimulation. There were false-negative results in 4 (11.5%) and 8 (10.7%) cases, respectively. In particular, with electrical stimulation 14 of 65 (21.5%), and with magnetoelectric stimulation 8 of 43 (18.6%) superficial lesions were missed, whereas deep lesions were correctly assessed in every case by either stimulation technique. In conclusion, the diagnostic significance of MEP for assessment of superficial supratentorial lesions is limited with the methods applied in this study. Whether more refined techniques may provide different results in a similar setting remains to be proved.

Adolescent↗