ALESSANDRA GIANNELLA SAMELLI
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina - Docente
LIM/34 - Laboratório de Ciências da Reabilitação, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/34 - Laboratório de Ciências da Reabilitação, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
4 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 4 de 4
article 6 Citação(ões) na Scopus Comparing audiological evaluation and screening: a study on presbycusis(2011) SAMELLI, Alessandra Giannella; NEGRETTI, Camila Aparecida; UEDA, Kerli Saori; MOREIRA, Renata Rodrigues; SCHOCHAT, ElianeGiven the high prevalence of presbycusis and the damage it brings about, a screening test can be useful in the identification of hearing loss in primary care. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss in a representative sample of elderly people living at Butantan using an audiological screening method (questionnaire) and a basic audiological evaluation; to compare the results of the two kinds of evaluations, checking the validity of this tool for hearing loss screening. Design: Cross sectional descriptive study. Materials and Methods: 200 individuals (above 60 years old, both genders) were randomly selected to undergo audiological screening (questionnaire). Another randomly selected group encompassed 100 individuals who were submitted to a set of audiological tests. Then, we compared the results from the two methods. Results: There were no statistically significant associations between the questionnaire and the degree of hearing loss of the patients. Conclusion: The prevalence of hearing loss in our sample was of 56% in the screening and of 95% when checked by the audiological evaluation. Therefore, screening was not proven valid to assess hearing when compared to audiological evaluation.- Speech and non-speech processing in children with phonological disorders: an electrophysiological study(2011) GONCALVES, Isabela Crivellaro; WERTZNER, Haydee Fiszbein; SAMELLI, Alessandra Giannella; MATAS, Carla GentileOBJECTIVE: To determine whether neurophysiological auditory brainstem responses to clicks and repeated speech stimuli differ between typically developing children and children with phonological disorders. INTRODUCTION: Phonological disorders are language impairments resulting from inadequate use of adult phonological language rules and are among the most common speech and language disorders in children (prevalence: 8 - 9%). Our hypothesis is that children with phonological disorders have basic differences in the way that their brains encode acoustic signals at brainstem level when compared to normal counterparts. METHODS: We recorded click and speech evoked auditory brainstem responses in 18 typically developing children (control group) and in 18 children who were clinically diagnosed with phonological disorders (research group). The age range of the children was from 7-11 years. RESULTS: The research group exhibited significantly longer latency responses to click stimuli (waves I, III and V) and speech stimuli (waves V and A) when compared to the control group. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that the abnormal encoding of speech sounds may be a biological marker of phonological disorders. However, these results cannot define the biological origins of phonological problems. We also observed that speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses had a higher specificity/sensitivity for identifying phonological disorders than click-evoked auditory brainstem responses. CONCLUSIONS: Early stages of the auditory pathway processing of an acoustic stimulus are not similar in typically developing children and those with phonological disorders. These findings suggest that there are brainstem auditory pathway abnormalities in children with phonological disorders.
article 15 Citação(ões) na Scopus P300 with verbal and nonverbal stimuli in normal hearing adults(2011) MASSA, Camila Goncalves Polo; RABELO, Camila Maia; MATAS, Carla Gentile; SCHOCHAT, Eliane; SAMELLI, Alessandra GiannellaThe P300 results from focusing attention on rare stimuli in the midst of other frequent stimuli; it tests recent attention and memory, both of which depend on discriminating among verbal or nonverbal stimuli. Aim: To compare the P300 with verbal and nonverbal stimuli in normal-hearing adults. Material and Method: A prospective study was made of 15 male subjects aged from 22 to 55, with no hearing complaints. The subjects underwent short and long latency (P300) auditory evoked potentials with verbal and non-verbal stimuli. Results: The mean P300 latency with verbal stimuli was significantly higher than the P300 with nonverbal stimuli. The P300 amplitudes were significantly lower for verbal compared with nonverbal stimuli. Conclusion: There were no differences between ears with respect to P300 latencies and amplitudes for both non-verbal and verbal stimuli. Latencies were higher with verbal stimuli; amplitudes had lower values.- Development and analysis of a low-cost screening tool to identify and classify hearing loss in children: a proposal for developing countries(2011) SAMELLI, Alessandra Giannella; RABELO, Camila Maia; VESPASIANO, Ana Paula ChaparinOBJECTIVES: A lack of attention has been given to hearing health in primary care in developing countries. A strategy involving low-cost screening tools may fill the current gap in hearing health care provided to children. Therefore, it is necessary to establish and adopt lower-cost procedures that are accessible to underserved areas that lack other physical or human resources that would enable the identification of groups at risk for hearing loss. The aim of this study was to develop and analyze the efficacy of a low-cost screening tool to identify and classify hearing loss in children. METHODS: A total of 214 2-to-10 year-old children participated in this study. The study was conducted by providing a questionnaire to the parents and comparing the answers with the results of a complete audiological assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, and discriminant analysis techniques were used to classify each child based on the total score. RESULTS: We found conductive hearing loss in 39.3% of children, sensorineural hearing loss in 7.4% and normal hearing in 53.3%. The discriminant analysis technique provided the following classification rule for the total score on the questionnaire: 0 to 4 points - normal hearing; 5 to 7 points - conductive hearing loss; over 7 points sensorineural hearing loss. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the questionnaire could be used as a screening tool to classify children with normal hearing or hearing loss and according to the type of hearing loss based on the total questionnaire score.