Feasibility of virtual telehealth cochlear-implant testing

2020 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 2714-2714
Author(s):  
Joshua G. Bernstein ◽  
Elicia M. Pillion ◽  
Sandeep A. Phatak ◽  
Coral Dirks ◽  
Anthony M. Tolisano
2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle T. Fletcher ◽  
Frank W. Dicken ◽  
Margaret M. Adkins ◽  
Trey A. Cline ◽  
Beth N. McNulty ◽  
...  

There is underutilization of cochlear implants with delays in implantation linked to distance from implant centers. Telemedicine could connect cochlear implant specialists with patients in rural locations. We piloted telemedicine cochlear implant testing in a small study, largely composed of normal-hearing volunteers to trial this new application of teleaudiology technology. Thirteen subjects (8 with normal hearing and 5 with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound) underwent a traditional cochlear implant evaluation in person and then via telemedicine technology. Routine audiometry, word recognition testing, and Arizona Biological Test (AzBio) and consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) testing were performed. Mean (SD) percent difference in AzBio between in-person and remote testing was 1.7% (2.06%). Pure tone average (PTA), speech reception threshold (SRT), and word recognition were similar between methods. CNC testing showed a mean (SD) difference of 6.8% (10.2%) between methods. Testing conditions were acceptable to audiologists and subjects. Further study to validate this method in cochlear implant candidates and a larger population is warranted.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4325-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Katrin Fuersen ◽  
Barbara Streicher ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth ◽  
Martin Walger

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to compare results by Skuk et al. (2020) with Meister et al. (2016) and to point to a potential general influence of stimulus type. Conclusion Our conclusion is that presenting sentences may give cochlear implant recipients the opportunity to use timbre cues for voice perception. This might not be the case when presenting brief and sparse stimuli such as consonant–vowel–consonant or single words, which were applied in the majority of studies.


Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.


2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Chute ◽  
Helen C. Buhler
Keyword(s):  

ASHA Leader ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Lisa Satterfield ◽  
Neela Swanson
Keyword(s):  

ASHA Leader ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 4-13
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  

ASHA Leader ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (14) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Kellie Rowden-Racette

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document