Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users?
Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked p...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves [verfasserIn] Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt [verfasserIn] Tsuji, Robinson Koji [verfasserIn] Bento, Ricardo Ferreira [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Hearing research - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978, 404 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:404 |
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV005799139 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV005799139 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231205154514.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230504s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV005799139 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 570 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a BIODIV |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a 44.94 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Cochlear implant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Speech recognition | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fitting | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cortical potentials | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tsuji, Robinson Koji |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bento, Ricardo Ferreira |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Hearing research |d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 |g 404 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)32045374X |w (DE-600)2006374-X |w (DE-576)094423733 |x 1878-5891 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:404 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a FID-BIODIV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_101 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_647 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.94 |j Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 404 | ||
| author_variant |
k v c m kvc kvcm m v s g g mvsg mvsgg r k t rk rkt r f b rf rfb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:18785891:2021----::ohmnmmnmxmmofralsiuaineesnlecteotcloetaltnisrhsecrc |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| bklnumber |
44.94 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 doi (DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 aut Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 aut Tsuji, Robinson Koji verfasserin aut Bento, Ricardo Ferreira verfasserin aut Enthalten in Hearing research Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 404 Online-Ressource (DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 1878-5891 nnns volume:404 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.94 Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde VZ AR 404 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 doi (DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 aut Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 aut Tsuji, Robinson Koji verfasserin aut Bento, Ricardo Ferreira verfasserin aut Enthalten in Hearing research Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 404 Online-Ressource (DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 1878-5891 nnns volume:404 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.94 Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde VZ AR 404 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 doi (DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 aut Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 aut Tsuji, Robinson Koji verfasserin aut Bento, Ricardo Ferreira verfasserin aut Enthalten in Hearing research Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 404 Online-Ressource (DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 1878-5891 nnns volume:404 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.94 Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde VZ AR 404 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 doi (DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 aut Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 aut Tsuji, Robinson Koji verfasserin aut Bento, Ricardo Ferreira verfasserin aut Enthalten in Hearing research Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 404 Online-Ressource (DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 1878-5891 nnns volume:404 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.94 Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde VZ AR 404 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 doi (DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 aut Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 aut Tsuji, Robinson Koji verfasserin aut Bento, Ricardo Ferreira verfasserin aut Enthalten in Hearing research Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978 404 Online-Ressource (DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 1878-5891 nnns volume:404 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.94 Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde VZ AR 404 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Hearing research 404 volume:404 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Hearing research 404 volume:404 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials |
| dewey-raw |
570 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Hearing research |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves @@aut@@ Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt @@aut@@ Tsuji, Robinson Koji @@aut@@ Bento, Ricardo Ferreira @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
32045374X |
| dewey-sort |
3570 |
| id |
ELV005799139 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV005799139</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231205154514.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230504s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV005799139</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.94</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cochlear implant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Speech recognition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fitting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cortical potentials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tsuji, Robinson Koji</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bento, Ricardo Ferreira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Hearing research</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978</subfield><subfield code="g">404</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)32045374X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2006374-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)094423733</subfield><subfield code="x">1878-5891</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:404</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.94</subfield><subfield code="j">Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">404</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves |
| spellingShingle |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves ddc 570 fid BIODIV bkl 44.94 misc Cochlear implant misc Speech recognition misc Fitting misc Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials misc Cortical potentials Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| authorStr |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)32045374X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
570 - Life sciences; biology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1878-5891 |
| topic_title |
570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? Cochlear implant Speech recognition Fitting Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials Cortical potentials |
| topic |
ddc 570 fid BIODIV bkl 44.94 misc Cochlear implant misc Speech recognition misc Fitting misc Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials misc Cortical potentials |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 570 fid BIODIV bkl 44.94 misc Cochlear implant misc Speech recognition misc Fitting misc Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials misc Cortical potentials |
| topic_browse |
ddc 570 fid BIODIV bkl 44.94 misc Cochlear implant misc Speech recognition misc Fitting misc Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials misc Cortical potentials |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Hearing research |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
32045374X |
| dewey-tens |
570 - Life sciences; biology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Hearing research |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)32045374X (DE-600)2006374-X (DE-576)094423733 |
| title |
Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV005799139 (ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X |
| title_full |
Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| author_sort |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves |
| journal |
Hearing research |
| journalStr |
Hearing research |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| author_browse |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt Tsuji, Robinson Koji Bento, Ricardo Ferreira |
| container_volume |
404 |
| class |
570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 44.94 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0003-3093-9417 (ORCID)0000-0002-4440-7692 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417 (orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692 |
| dewey-full |
570 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| title_auth |
Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| abstract |
Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. |
| abstractGer |
Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 |
| title_short |
Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt Tsuji, Robinson Koji Bento, Ricardo Ferreira |
| author2Str |
Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt Tsuji, Robinson Koji Bento, Ricardo Ferreira |
| ppnlink |
32045374X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T19:12:07.791Z |
| _version_ |
1803858086766575616 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV005799139</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231205154514.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230504s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV005799139</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-5955(21)00040-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.94</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Martins, Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3093-9417</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system.Objective: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users.Material and methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test.Results: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance.Conclusions: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cochlear implant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Speech recognition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fitting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Threshold and comfort levels, Psychoacoustics, Cortical auditory evoked potentials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cortical potentials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goffi-Gomez, Maria Valéria Schmidt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-4440-7692</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tsuji, Robinson Koji</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bento, Ricardo Ferreira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Hearing research</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1978</subfield><subfield code="g">404</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)32045374X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2006374-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)094423733</subfield><subfield code="x">1878-5891</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:404</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.94</subfield><subfield code="j">Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">404</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3988733 |