Speech Perception Performance of Double Array Multichannel Cochlear Implant Users With Standard and Duplicated Maps in Each of the Arrays
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
1
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Citação
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, v.34, n.2, p.245-250, 2013
Resumo
Objective: The present investigation evaluated the speech perception performance of patients with ossified cochlea implanted with the 24M Double Array cochlear implant, using standard and duplicated maps in each of the arrays. Study Design: Retrospective case review. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Sixteen subjects received a Double Array cochlear implant. Among these, 9 fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: bilateral severe-to- profound postlingual deafness; bilateral obliterated cochlea, as shown by a computed tomographic scan; and a minimum age of 14 years to ensure reliable responses in the behavioral tests with the 3 tested maps. Intervention: Rehabilitative. Main Outcome Measures: The speech perception performance with the 2 arrays was compared with that with a basal array duplicated map and an apical array duplicated map. Three maps were fitted: the default map with both arrays activated, a double channel map using only the electrodes of the basal array, and a double channel map programmed only with the electrodes of the apical array. The test battery was composed of a vowel test, a 4-choice word test, and sentence recognition in quiet. Results: Statistical significance was reached in comparison the all tests in all programming conditions. Speech recognition in the standard map with both electrode arrays activated showed the highest scores. Conclusion: Performance with the 2 split electrode arrays was superior to those with the single arrays, regardless of the duplication of channels.
Palavras-chave
Cochlear implants, Cochlear ossification, Double array, Speech perception
Referências
- Axon PR, 1998, AM J OTOL, V19, P724
- Barker E, 2009, OTOLARYNG HEAD NECK, V140, P697, DOI 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.12.046
- Bogar Mariana, 2008, Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, V74, P194
- Bredberg G, 2003, Cochlear Implants Int, V4, P55, DOI 10.1002/cii.66
- Douglas Susan A, 2008, Cochlear Implants Int, V9, P90, DOI 10.1002/cii.344
- Eshraghi AA, 2004, OTOLARYNG HEAD NECK, V131, P885, DOI 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.05.019
- Francis HW, 2004, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V130, P604, DOI 10.1001/archotol.130.5.604
- Goffi-Gomez MV, 2010, EUR ARCH OTO-RHINO-L, V267, P515, DOI 10.1007/s00405-009-1092-7
- Goffi-Gomez MVS, 2004, ARQ OTORRINOLARINGOL, V7, P197
- Lenarz T, 2000, ADV OTO-RHINO-LARYNG, V57, P354
- Lenarz T, 2002, EAR HEARING, V23, p90S
- Lenarz T, 2001, OTOL NEUROTOL, V22, P24, DOI 10.1097/00129492-200101000-00006
- MacAndie C, 2000, Cochlear Implants Int, V1, P108, DOI 10.1002/cii.34
- Millar DA, 2005, LARYNGOSCOPE, V115, P2155, DOI 10.1097/01.MLG.0000181494.21654.5E
- Mosnier I, 2006, Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac, V123, P71, DOI 10.1016/S0003-438X(06)76645-2
- Pasanisi E, 2002, Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, V22, P127
- Roland JT, 2008, OTOL NEUROTOL, V29, P1068, DOI 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318188e8ea
- Sridhar Divya, 2006, Audiol Neurootol, V11 Suppl 1, P16, DOI 10.1159/000095609
- Trinh BT, 2000, J OTOLARYNGOL, V29, P279
- [Anonymous], PROGR GUID NUCL 24 D