KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6

Comparison eCAP and behaviour thresholds in post lingual medel cochlear implant users

Hüseyin DENİZ
Elif Tuğba SARAÇ
Şemsettin OKUYUCU
Sayfa
1704–1709
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

With the occupational experience acquired in this manner, more accurate programming can be done.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: Our purpose with this study is to determine the most effective and suitable cochlear implant programming method for CI users’implants to experience quality hearing and for the users to achieve efficiency from their implants.Materials and Methods:Twenty-five cochlear implant users with post lingual progressive hearing loss were included in the study.Twelve electrodes’ ART (auditory nerve response telemetry) thresholds were determined and were statistically analyzed to beevaluated in the study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For 12 electrodes whose AutoART threshold was determined, the MCLs (most comfortable loudness) weredetermined behaviorally.Results: No correlations were found between the 12 electrodes and AutoART.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:With the occupational experience acquired in this manner, more accurate programming can be done.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2000 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: Our purpose with this study is to determine the most effective and suitable cochlear implant programming method for CI users’implants to experience quality hearing and for the users to achieve efficiency from their implants.Materials and Methods:Twenty-five cochlear implant users with post lingual progressive hearing loss were included in the study.Twelve electrodes’ ART (auditory nerve response telemetry) thresholds were determined and were statistically analyzed to beevaluated in the study. For 12 electrodes whose AutoART threshold was determined, the MCLs (most comfortable loudness) weredetermined behaviorally.Results: No correlations were found between the 12 electrodes and AutoART. It was seen that there was a correlation between thepure tone average obtained from 500-1000-2000 and 4000Hz and the speech reception threshold.Conclusion: The use of two test batteries together to determine thresholds can be helpful in the programming of the speechprocessor. The more audiologists work with cochlear implant patients and do programming, the more they accumulate data andgain occupational experience. With the occupational experience acquired in this manner, more accurate programming can be done.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DENİZ, H., SARAÇ, E. T., OKUYUCU, Ş. (2022). Comparison eCAP and behaviour thresholds in post lingual medel cochlear implant users. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6, 1704–1709. https://ajindex.com/articles/446402

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Greisiger R, Shallop JK, Hol PK, et al. Cochlear implantees: Analysis of behavioral and objective measures for a clinical population of various age groups. Cochlear Implants Int 2015;4:1-19
  2. Kosaner J, Spitzer P, Bayguzina S, et al. Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MEDEL cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2018;19:153-61
  3. Raghunandhan S, Ravikumar A, Kameswaran M, et al. Electrophysiological Correlates of Behavioral Comfort Levels in Cochlear Implantees: A Prospective Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;67:210-22
  4. De Seta D, Torres R, Russo FY, et al. Damage to inner ear structure during cochlear implantation: Correlation between insertion force and radio-histological findings in temporal bone specimens. Hear Res 2017;344:90-7
  5. Vaerenberg B, Smits C. Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. ScientificWorldJournal 2014;2014:501738
  6. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001;22:471-86
  7. Schmidt M, Griesser A. Long-term stability of fitting parameters with the COMBI 40. Am J Otol 1997;18:109-10
  8. Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;45:111- 27
  9. Vargas JL, Sainz M, Roldan C, et al. Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012;5:194-200
  10. Mens LH. Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity. Trends Amplif 2007;11:143-59
  11. Gordon KA, Abbasalipour P, Papsin BC. Balancing current levels in children with bilateral cochlear implants using electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Hear Res 2016;335:193-206
  12. Telmesani LM, Said NM. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82:28-33
  13. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK, et al. Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear Res 1999;130:197-218
  14. Miller CA, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, et al. The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hear Res 2008;242:184-97
  15. Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, et al. Changes