| Literature DB >> 31131837 |
J C Falcón González1, S Borkoski Barreiro1, A Ramos De Miguel2, A Ramos Macías1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Cochlear implant; Programming Method; Speech perception
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31131837 PMCID: PMC6536028 DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-2013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital ISSN: 0392-100X Impact factor: 2.124
WAV file stimuli corresponding to each consecutive series of channels used to determine the individual frequency reallocations for the Modified Frequency Allocation (FAP) [8].
| 125 Hz - 250 Hz | 3rd octave chord | Channel 22 | |
| 250 Hz - 500 Hz | 3rd octave chord | Channels | |
| 400 Hz - 1 kHz | 4th octave chord | Channels | |
| 800 Hz - 2 kHz | 4th octave chord | Channels | |
| 2 kHz - 4 kHz | 5th octave chord | Channels | |
| 4 K Hz - 8 kHz | Vowels and consonants | Channels |
Fig. 1.Difference Standard Coding Electrodogram vs Frequency Coding Electrodogram. In this case, it can be seen that small differences are observed for the apical electrodes, 1-5, and that higher differences are observed for electrodes 21-11. Our observations suggest, however, that even the minor differences shown for all the electrodes can affect sound quality.
Fig. 2.The distribution of means of warble-tone thresholds were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral patients using the standard and FAP MAPs.
Fig. 3.The distribution of the percentage-correct scores are shown for the disyllabic and sentence tests for unilaterally and bilaterally implanted patients.
Fig. 4.SRT50% distribution is shown for the Standard Programming conditions vs FAP.