Peer-Reviewed Publications

1.) Hughes ML, Sevier JD, & Choi S. (2018). Techniques for remotely programming children with cochlear implants using pediatric audiological methods via telepractice. American Journal of Audiology, in press.

2.) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Sevier JD, & Choi S. (2018). Measuring sound-processor threshold levels for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using visual reinforcement audiometry via telepractice. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, in press.

3.) Hughes ML, Choi S, & Glickman E (2018). What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients? Hearing Research, 359, 50-63.

4.) Moeller MP, Stille LJ, Hughes ML, & Lusk RP (2018). Perceived improvements and challenges following sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children and adults. Cochlear Implants International, 19(2), 72-87.

5.) Hughes ML & Laurello S (2017). Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants. Hearing Research, 351, 116-129.

6.) Spitzer ER & Hughes ML (2017). Effect of stimulus polarity on physiological spread of excitation in cochlear implants. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 28, 786-798.

7.) Goehring JL & Hughes ML (2017). Measuring sound-processor threshold levels for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using conditioned play audiometry via telepractice. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(3), 732-740. [PMID: 28257529]

8.) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, & Baudhuin JL (2017). Effects of stimulus polarity and artifact reduction method on the electrically evoked compound action potential.  Ear and Hearing, 38(3), 332-343. [PMID: PMC5404966]

9.) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL, & Schmid KK. (2016). Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(4), 2297-2311. [PMID: 27794318]

10.) Baudhuin JL, Hughes ML, & Goehring JL (2016). A comparison of alternating polarity and forward masking artifact-reduction methods to resolve the electrically evoked compound action potential.  Ear and Hearing, 37(4), e247-e255. [PMCID: PMC4925180]

11.) Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, & Goehring JL (2015).  Effect of electrode impedance on spread of excitation and pitch perception using electrically coupled “dual-electrode” stimulation.  Ear and Hearing, 36(2), e50-56. [PMCID: PMC4336631]

12.) Goehring JL, Neff DL, Baudhuin JL, & Hughes ML (2014). Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread of excitation using current steering in cochlear implants.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(6), 3159-3171. [PMCID: PMC4257956]

13.) Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, & Goehring JL (2014).  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.  Hearing Research, 316, 44-56. [PMCID: PMC4194221]

14.) Goehring JL, Neff DL, Baudhuin JL, & Hughes ML (2014). Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread-of-excitation using Cochlear’s dual-electrode mode.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(2), 715-727. [PMCID: PMC4144258]

15.) Hughes ML, Neff DL, Simmons JL, & Moeller MP (2014).  Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing. Otology & Neurotology, 35(8), 1373-1384. [Public Access Compliance - N/A, not NIH-funded research]

16.) Hughes ML, Stille LJ, Baudhuin JL, & Goehring JL (2013).  ECAP spread of excitation with virtual channels and physical electrodes.  Hearing Research, 306, 93-103. [PMCID: PMC3951167]

17.) Bournique JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL & Goehring JL (2013).  Effect of ECAP-based choice of stimulation rate on speech-perception performance.  Ear and Hearing, 34(4), 437-446. [PMCID: PMC3626760]

18.) Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, & Lusk RP (2013).  How well do cochlear implant intraoperative impedance measures predict postoperative electrode function?  Otology & Neurotology, 34(2), 239-244. [PMCID: PMC3548045]

19.) Glassman EK & Hughes ML (2013).  Determining electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds: A comparison of computer versus human analysis methods.  Ear and Hearing, 34(1), 96-109. [PMCID: PMC3511653]

20.) Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, Valente DL, McCreery RW, Diaz GR, Sanford T, & Harpster R. (2012).  The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients.  Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(5), 1373-1386. [PMCID: PMC3474600]

21.) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL, Diaz GR, Sanford T, Harpster R, & Valente DL (2012). Use of telehealth for research and clinical measures in cochlear implant recipients: A validation study.  Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1112-1127. [PMCID: PMC3462493]

22.) Hughes ML, Castioni EE, Goehring JL, & Baudhuin JL (2012). Temporal response properties of the auditory nerve: Data from human cochlear-implant recipients. Hearing Research, 285, 46-57. [PMCID: PMC3299843]

23.) Wiley S, Meinzen-Derr J, Grether S, Choo DI, Hughes ML (2012).  Longitudinal functional performance among children with cochlear implants and disabilities: A prospective study using the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory.  International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 76, 693-697. [Public Access Compliance - N/A, not NIH-Funded research]

24.) Hughes ML & Goulson AM (2011). Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.  Ear and Hearing, 32, 323-330. [PMCID: PMC3085936]

25.) Hughes ML & Stille LJ (2010). Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.  Ear and Hearing, 31 (5), 679-692. [PMCID: PMC2932804]

26.) Saoji AA, Litvak LM & Hughes ML (2009). Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.  Ear and Hearing, 30 (5), 559-567. [Public Access Compliance - N/A, not NIH-funded research]

27.) Hughes ML & Stille LJ (2009). Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125 (1), 247-260. [PMCID: PMC2633105]

28.) Hughes ML (2008). A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124 (5), 2711-2714. [PMCID: PMC2596999]

29.) Hughes ML & Stille LJ. (2008). Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.  Ear and Hearing, 29 (3), 435-452. [PMCID: PMC2467511]

30.) Hughes ML & Abbas PJ (2006). The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119 (3), 1527-1537.

31.) Hughes ML & Abbas PJ (2006). Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119 (3), 1538-1547.

32.) Hughes ML, Brown CJ, & Abbas PJ. (2004). Sensitivity and specificity of averaged electrode voltage (AEV) measures in cochlear implant recipients.  Ear and Hearing, 25, 1-16.

33.) Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Miller CA, & South H. (2004). Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential.  Audiology and Neurotology, 9(4), 203-213.

34.) Turner C, Mehr M, Hughes M, Brown C, & Abbas P (2002). Within-subject predictors of speech recognition in cochlear implants: A null result.  Acoustics Research Letters Online (Acoustical Society of America), 3(3), 95-100.

35.) Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Rubinstein JT, Wolaver A, Lowder M, Abbas P, Brown C, Hughes M, & Preece JP (2002). Binaural cochlear implants placed during the same operation.  Otology & Neurotology, 23, 169-180.

36.) Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Kelsay DMR, Teagle HFB, & Lowder MW. (2001). A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, EAP, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users.  Ear and Hearing, 22, 471-486.

37.) Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, & Gervais JP (2000). Comparison of EAP thresholds to MAP levels in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear and Hearing, 21, 164-174.

38.) Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, & Gervais JP (2000). The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus CI24M speech processor: Data from adults. Ear and Hearing, 21, 151-163.

39.) Hughes ML, Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, & Gantz BJ (2000). Using electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to facilitate creating MAPs for children with the Nucleus CI24M. In Kim CS, Chang SO & Lim D (eds.), Updates in Cochlear Implantation.  Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Basel, Karger, 57, 260-265.

40.) Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Gantz BJ, Wolaver AA, Gervais JP, & Hong SH (2000). Electrically evoked compound action potentials recorded from subjects who use the Nucleus CI24M device.  Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 109:12 (Suppl. 185), 6-9.

41.) Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, Firszt JB, Hughes ML, Hong SH, & Staller SJ (1999). Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential (EAP). Ear and Hearing, 20, 45-59.

42.) Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Lopez SM, & Abbas PJ (1999). Relationship Between EABR Thresholds and Levels Used to Program the Clarion Speech Processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 108:4 (Suppl 177), 50-57.

Book

Hughes ML (2012). Objective Measures in Cochlear Implants. San Diego: Plural Publishing.

Invited Publications

1.) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Miller MK, & Robinson SN. (2016). Pediatric cochlear implant mapping via telepractice. ASHA SIG 18 Perspectives on Telepractice, 1(1), 12-18.

2.) Goehring JL, Hughes ML, & Baudhuin, JL (2012). Evaluating the feasibility of using remote technology for cochlear implants. The Volta Review, 112(3), 255-265. [PMCID: PMC4160841]

3.) Hughes ML (2012). Receiving and maintaining a cochlear implant: What Nurse Life Care Planners need to know. Journal of Nurse Life Care Planning, 12(2), 618-630.

4.) Hughes ML (2010). Fundamentals of clinical ECAP measures in cochlear implants, Part 1: Use of the ECAP in speech processor programming (2nd Ed.). Audiology Online, November 8, 2010, Article 2347.  Retrieved November 8, 2010 from http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=2347.

5.) Hughes ML (2006). Fundamentals of clinical ECAP measures in cochlear implants, Part 2: Measurement techniques and tips. Audiology Online, November 6, 2006, Article 1717.  Retrieved November 6, 2006 from the Articles Archive on http://www.audiologyonline.com.

6.) Hughes ML. (2006). Fundamentals of clinical ECAP measures in cochlear implants, Part 1: Use of the ECAP in speech processor programming. Audiology Online, April 10, 2006, Article 1569.  Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Articles Archive on http://www.audiologyonline.com

Abstracts, Proceedings, Articles, and Editorials

(1) Aronoff J & Hughes ML. (2016). Editorial: Binaural Hearing with Cochlear Implants for Bilateral, Bimodal, and Single-Sided Deafness Patients. Ear & Hearing, 37(3), 247.

(2) Thomas RJ, Buchman C, Eisenberg L, Henderson L, He S, Firszt J, Francis H, Dunn C, Sladen D, Arndt S, May B, Zeitler D, Niparko JK, Emmett S, Tucci D, Chen J, McConkey RA, Schwefler E, Geers A, Lederberg A, Hayes H, Hughes M, Bierer J, Schafer E, Sorkin D, Kozma-Spytek L & Childress T. (2016). Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance. Cochlear. Implants. Int. 1-27.

(3) Hughes ML. (2014). Telepractice for cochlear implant follow-up? Yes!  ASHA Leader, July 2014, p. 39. (Invited)

(4) Hughes ML. (2014). Validation of audiological measures via telepractice for cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 15(5), 297-298. (Abstract)

(5) Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL, Sanford T, Harpster R (2011). A validity assessment of telehealth for clinical and research measures in CIs.  International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 75 (Suppl. 1), p. 50. (Abstract)

(6) Hughes ML & Glassman EK (2011).  A comparison of computer versus human methods of ECAP threshold determination. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 75 (Suppl. 1), p. 94. (Abstract)

(7) Hughes ML & Stille LJ (2007). Channel interaction patterns with simultaneous stimulation: psychophysical and physiological measures.  In “Auditory Research Bulletin”, Advanced Bionics: Valencia, CA, pp. 70-71. (Invited paper)

(8) Hughes ML (2006). What early interventionists need to know about cochlear implants.  American Association for Home-Based Early Interventionists News Exchange, vol. 11, no. 3, Fall 2006. (Invited paper)

(9) Hughes ML, Stille LJ & Barrow KR (2005). Psychophysical versus physiologic forward masking in cochlear implants. In “Auditory Research Bulletin”, Advanced Bionics: Valencia, CA, pp. 80-81. (Invited paper)

(10) Etler CP, Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Dunn SM, Zubrod LJ, & Van Voorst TL (2004). Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiologic measures of channel interaction.  In R. Miyamoto (Ed.) “Cochlear Implants: Proceedings of the VIII International Cochlear Implant Conference”, International Congress Series vol. 1273, Elsevier, 44-47.

(11) Hughes ML, Brown CJ & Abbas PJ. (2003). Characteristics of the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and clinical applications.  In “Cochlear Collaborative Research Report”, Cochlear Ltd: Melbourne, Australia, pp. 32-33. (Invited paper)

(12) Brown CJ & Hughes, ML (2000). Neural Response Telemetry (NRT): Part Two.  Nucleus News, Summer Issue. (Invited paper)