Literature DB >> 11883770

Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures.

Keely Seyle1, Carolyn J Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine how speech perception is affected for Nucleus cochlear implant users when their speech processor is programmed using neural response telemetry (NRT) measures rather than traditional behavioral estimates of threshold and maximum comfort level.
DESIGN: Electrically evoked compound action potential (EAP) thresholds were measured for a group of 10 adult Nucleus cochlear implant users. These physiologic threshold estimates were used to create three SPEAK MAPs. One MAP ("+10/-20 MAP") was created using only the NRT data. The second MAP ("Combined MAP") was created using a combination of both EAP thresholds and a single behavioralmeasure of threshold and maximum comfort level from electrode 10. A third MAP ("Measured MAP") was created using standard programming techniques. Speech perception was then assessed using each of these three MAPs for either CUNY or HINT sentences presented at two different presentation levels (70 dB SPL and 55 dB SPL).
RESULTS: On average, at the higher presentation level (70 dB SPL) subjects performed significantly better when using the Measured MAP than whenusing either of the NRT-based MAPs. No significant difference in speech perception was obtained for either of the three MAPs when the lower presentation level (55 dB SPL) was used.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that at relatively high presentation levels, speech perception scores obtained by subjects who use MAPs based solely or primarily on EAP thresholds ar eslightly lower than similar scores obtained using a more traditional MAP. This difference did not reach statistical significance at lower presentation levels. We interpret these findings in a positive light to suggest that although NRT-based MAPs may not be optimal, they are of sufficient quality to support reasonable levels of speech understanding. This is important to establish because these MAPs may prove to be most useful when very young children receive a cochlear implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11883770     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  14 in total

1.  Maps created using a new objective procedure (C-NRT) correlate with behavioral, loudness-balanced maps: a study in adult cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Alessandro Scorpecci; Alessandra D'Elia; Paolo Malerba; Italo Cantore; Patrizia Consolino; Franco Trabalzini; Gaetano Paludetti; Nicola Quaranta
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes.

Authors:  Octavio Garaycochea; Raquel Manrique-Huarte; Carlos Lazaro; Alicia Huarte; Carlos Prieto; Marta Alvarez de Linera-Alperi; Manuel Manrique
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant.

Authors:  Eun Kyung Jeon; Carolyn J Brown; Christine P Etler; Sara O'Brien; Li-Kuei Chiou; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 4.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05

Review 5.  Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity.

Authors:  Lucas H M Mens
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-09

6.  Technical devices for hearing-impaired individuals: cochlear implants and brain stem implants - developments of the last decade.

Authors:  Joachim Müller
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-09-28

7.  Imaging of electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Gijs K A van Wermeskerken; Adriaan F van Olphen; Kees Graamans
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Can ECAP measures be used for totally objective programming of cochlear implants?

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Kirpa Chandan; Idrick Akhoun; Catherine Siciliano; Karolina Kluk
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-19

9.  The next generation of Nucleus(®) fitting: a multiplatform approach towards universal cochlear implant management.

Authors:  Andrew Botros; Rami Banna; Saji Maruthurkkara
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Modeling of Auditory Neuron Response Thresholds with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Frederic Venail; Thibault Mura; Mohamed Akkari; Caroline Mathiolon; Sophie Menjot de Champfleur; Jean Pierre Piron; Marielle Sicard; Françoise Sterkers-Artieres; Michel Mondain; Alain Uziel
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-05       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.