[Audiological evaluation of the middle ear implant--temporal auditory acuity].
Temporal auditory acuities provided by the middle ear implant (MEI) and by the hearing aid (HA) were compared in ten patients implanted with the MEI. Test sounds used in the experiment were tone bursts [rise and fall time: 25 msec, duration (t): 982-1000 msec, interval (T): 1000 msec] of 500 Hz or 2000 Hz at 70 dBSPL. A speaker was placed in front of a subject one meter apart. At first, the subject adjusted the gain control of outer unit at the most comfortable loudness level. He heard totally fifty times of the test sounds, which varied in duration each 2 msec difference between 982 and 1000 msec and were provided in random manner. Therefore, sound of each duration was given 5 times. The notch [= (T-t) x 2] of the test sounds recognized by the patients was regarded as time gap. Fifty percent discrimination thresholds, which were indicated by the gap times of the test sounds half identified, were obtained as the index of the temporal auditory acuity. Following the above test, performance of the HA was investigated by use of the same procedure. The results indicated that the temporal auditory acuities of the MEI were superior to those of the HA at 500 Hz (P less than 0.01) and 2000 Hz (P less than 0.001). When the intensity of the test sound at 2000 Hz decreased from 70 dBSPL to 60 or 50 dBSPL, the temporal auditory acuities of the MEI and the HA were almost depreciated together with consistent difference in the test of 6 patients (P less than 0.01, 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge
A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge 
Objective: To examine the current state of the science related to the safety and effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant in the treatment of hearing loss. 
Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were searched without date or language limits. 
Study Selection: Titles and abstracts of 7700 citations were screened and 69 articles selected for full review, of which 44 studies involving a total 832 patients met the study’s eligibility criteria. 
Data Extraction: Information was extracted using a pre-tested data abstraction form and study quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. 
Data Synthesis: Due to heterogeneity across studies, metaanalysis was not performed and comparisons were made by structured review. 
Conclusion: Of the studies that compared the VSB to conventional hearing aids, the majority reported statistically significant improvements in functional gain, speech reception, and quality of life with the VSB. Regarding speech recognition, the findings were mixed. Among studies that compared the VSB to the unaided condition, there was clinical benefit observed in all categories with the device. Adverse event rates were reasonably low, although VSB implantation poses a significant risk compared to non-invasive treatment with conventional hearing aids. The Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant appears to offer a safe and effective alternative for patients able and unable to wear conventional hearing aids.
5.63 and 5.80 MeV levels of Ne20; de-excitation branching
Abstract The ratio Г γ /Г for the 5.63 and 5.80 MeV levels of Ne 20 has been determined to be 0.077 (±0.008) and −4 , respectively, by using the C 12 (C 12 , α)Ne 20 reaction and determining the fraction of the events in which the alpha-particle and the Ne 20 recoil are present in coincidence at the kinematically correct angles. In both cases these results in themselves are shown to imply radiative E1 transition (5.63→1.63 and 5.80→0, respectively) probabilities ⪡5 × 10 −5 Weisskopf units. When taken together with the life-time for the 5.63 MeV level measured by Evans et al . values of Г( E1 ) ≲ 5 × 10 −6 and Г α ≈ 6% of the particle estimate are obtained for this state.