Download 13th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Auditory system wikipedia, lookup

Audiology and hearing health professionals in developed and developing countries wikipedia, lookup

Earplug wikipedia, lookup

Olivocochlear system wikipedia, lookup

Dysprosody wikipedia, lookup

Sensorineural hearing loss wikipedia, lookup

Noise-induced hearing loss wikipedia, lookup

Hearing loss wikipedia, lookup

Speech perception wikipedia, lookup

Telecommunications relay service wikipedia, lookup

Preferences of patients in the speech processor upgrades with new strategies
Samuel P.A. , Goffi-Gomez M.V.S. , Tsuji R.K. , Brito R. , Bento R.F.
Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Introduction: The new strategies of speech encoding intend improve the performance of the patient, but
represent changes during adaptation, which may require time for plasticity. The literature shows that the range of
frequencies is an important parameter in adapting to new technologies. It is important to review the settings and
preferences of patients in updates with new strategies.
Objective: To verify the frequency range and preferred strategy in the speech processor update.
Method: The study included eleven patients who used the speech processor Tempo+ and upgraded to Opus 2.
The maps for Opus 2 were as follows: frequency range 100 - 8500Hz and CIS strategy; frequency range 100 8500Hz and FS4 strategy; frequency range 300 - 8500Hz and CIS strategy; frequency range 300 - 8500Hz and
FS4 strategy. It was also analyzed the number of active electrodes, because this value may influence the applied
frequency range applied. After at least three months of home experience with all maps, free field audiometry and
speech perception tests (recognition of sentences in open set and monosyllables) were performed with the
preferred map. These results were compared with hearing thresholds and speech perception tests most recently
applied with Tempo+ speech processor.
Results: The CI mean time of use was 118 months. In the map used with Tempo+, six patients (54 %) used a
frequency ranges of 300 - 8500Hz, and five (46 %) used other ranges varying from 250Hz and 7000Hz or
8000Hz. Mean home experience was 4.6 months, most patients opted for a new range of frequencies with low
frequency in the lower limit (between 70 and 150Hz). With Opus 2 speech processor, six users (54 %) preferred
the FS4 strategy. Regarding the number of active electrodes, three users (25 %) had all active electrodes.
Hearing thresholds of users with Tempo+ were 36dB while with Opus2 they were 34dB. In speech perception
tests, users had an average of 66 % accuracy for open set sentences and 47 % recognition for monosyllabic
using Tempo+. With the Opus 2, the mean score was 58 % and 36 % respectively for the same tests.
Discussion and conclusion: after upgrade of the speech processor, the patients showed better slight
improvement in hearing thresholds. Speech perception tests showed worse in performance with the new
processor. This may have happened due to the new tonotopy that requires longer periods of adaptation.