International journal of audiology · 2021
Comparisons of electrophysiological and psychophysical fitting methods for cochlear implants.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Müller-Deile Joachim, Neben Nicole, Dillier Norbert, Büchner Andreas, Mewes Alexander, Junge Friederike, Lai Waikong, Schuessler Mark, Hey Matthias
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared two different versions of an electrophysiology-based software-guided cochlear implant fitting method with a procedure employing standard clinical software. The two versions used electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) thresholds for either five or all twenty-two electrodes to determine sound processor stimulation level profiles. Objective and subjective performance results were compared between software-guided and clinical fittings.
DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, single-subject repeated-measures with permuted ABCA sequences.
STUDY SAMPLE: 48 post linguistically deafened adults with ≤15 years of severe-to-profound deafness who were newly unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus device.
RESULTS: Speech recognition in noise and quiet was not significantly different between software- guided and standard methods, but there was a visit/learning-effect. However, the 5-electrode method gave scores on the SSQ speech subscale 0.5 points lower than the standard method. Clinicians judged usability for all methods as acceptable, as did subjects for comfort. Analysis of stimulation levels and ECAP thresholds suggested that the 5-electrode method could be refined.
CONCLUSIONS: Speech recognition was not inferior using either version of the electrophysiology-based software-guided fitting method compared with the standard method. Subject-reported speech perception was slightly inferior with the five-electrode method. Software-guided methods saved about 10 min of clinician's time versus standard fittings.
DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, single-subject repeated-measures with permuted ABCA sequences.
STUDY SAMPLE: 48 post linguistically deafened adults with ≤15 years of severe-to-profound deafness who were newly unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus device.
RESULTS: Speech recognition in noise and quiet was not significantly different between software- guided and standard methods, but there was a visit/learning-effect. However, the 5-electrode method gave scores on the SSQ speech subscale 0.5 points lower than the standard method. Clinicians judged usability for all methods as acceptable, as did subjects for comfort. Analysis of stimulation levels and ECAP thresholds suggested that the 5-electrode method could be refined.
CONCLUSIONS: Speech recognition was not inferior using either version of the electrophysiology-based software-guided fitting method compared with the standard method. Subject-reported speech perception was slightly inferior with the five-electrode method. Software-guided methods saved about 10 min of clinician's time versus standard fittings.