Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 20(03): 254-260
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1559595
Original Research
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Auditory Speech Perception Tests in Relation to the Coding Strategy in Cochlear Implant

Aline Cristine Bazon
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Erika Barioni Mantello
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Alina Sanches Gonçales
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Myriam de Lima Isaac
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Miguel Angelo Hyppolito
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 April 2015

02 June 2015

Publication Date:
28 July 2015 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The objective of the evaluation of auditory perception of cochlear implant users is to determine how the acoustic signal is processed, leading to the recognition and understanding of sound.

Objective To investigate the differences in the process of auditory speech perception in individuals with postlingual hearing loss wearing a cochlear implant, using two different speech coding strategies, and to analyze speech perception and handicap perception in relation to the strategy used.

Methods This study is prospective cross-sectional cohort study of a descriptive character. We selected ten cochlear implant users that were characterized by hearing threshold by the application of speech perception tests and of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults.

Results There was no significant difference when comparing the variables subject age, age at acquisition of hearing loss, etiology, time of hearing deprivation, time of cochlear implant use and mean hearing threshold with the cochlear implant with the shift in speech coding strategy. There was no relationship between lack of handicap perception and improvement in speech perception in both speech coding strategies used.

Conclusion There was no significant difference between the strategies evaluated and no relation was observed between them and the variables studied.

Keywords

cochlear implants - auditory perception - deafness - hearing loss
 

  • References

  • 1 Bento RF, Brito Neto R, Castilho AM, Gómez VG, Giorgi SB, Guedes MC. Resultados auditivos com o implante coclear multicanal em pacientes submetidos a cirurgia no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004; 70: 632-637
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Frederigue NB, Bevilacqua MC. Otimização da percepção da fala em deficientes auditivos usuários do sistema de implante coclear multicanal. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2005; 69: 227-233
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Nascimento IT, Bevilacqua MC. Avaliação da percepção da fala com ruído competitivo em adultos com implante coclear. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 71: 432-438
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Santos KT, Fernandes JC, Amorim RB, Bevilacqua MC. Avaliação da Percepção da fala no ruído em diferentes posições em adultos com Implante Coclear. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 13: 16-23
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Souza IPS, Brito R, Bento RF, Gomez MV, Tsuji RK, Hausen-Pinna M. Percepção de fala em adolescentes com surdez pré-lingual usuários de implante coclear. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77: 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Moore BC. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2008; 9 (4) 399-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rizzi FML, Bevilacqua MC. Efeitos do número e localização dos eletrodos na cóclea na percepção da fala de indivíduos pós-linguais implantados. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2003; 69: 364-369
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Riss D, Arnoldner C, Reiss S, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS. 1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 3: 1-4
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Ribeiro CF. Introdução ao Implante Coclear. In: Frota S. Fundamentos em Fonoaudiologia. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan; 2003: 195-210
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mello TM. Percepção da fala em crianças usuárias de implante coclear com 2 estratégias de processamento de sinal do sistema HIResolution [dissertation]. São Paulo, Brazil: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Lacerda AP. Audiologia Clínica. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Valente SLO. Elaboração de listas de sentenças construídas na língua portuguesa [dissertation]. São Paulo, Brazil: Pontifícia Universidade Católica; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (2) 176-186
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cary NC. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 9. SAS Institute Inc. California, USA; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Willott JF. Physiological plasticity in the auditory system and its possible relevance to hearing aid use, deprivation effects, and acclimatization. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (3, Suppl): 66S-77S
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Humes LE, Wilson DL, Barlow NN, Garner C. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45 (4) 772-782
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tremblay K. Central auditory plasticity: implications for auditory rehabilitation. Hearing J 2002; 56: 10
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Palmer CV. Deprivation and acclimatization in the human auditory system: do they happen? Do they matter?. Hearing J 1999; 52: 23-24
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Carvalho CN. Implante coclear no sul do Brasil: Realidade ou fantasia? [dissertation]. São Paulo, Brazil: Cefac; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Guedes MC, Weber R, Gomez MV, Neto SG, Peralta CG, Bento RF. Efeitos do potencial de ação neural sobre a percepção de fala em usuários de implante coclear. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 73: 439-445
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kutscher K, Goffi-gomez V, Befi-lopes DM, Tsuji RK, Bento RF. Implante coclear: correlação da recuperação neural, privação auditiva e etiologia. Pró-Fono Rev At Ci 2010; 22: 473-478
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Seebens Y, Diller G. Improvements in speech perception after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 audio processor. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012; 74 (1) 6-11
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Calháu CMDF, Lima Júnior LR, Reis AMCS , et al. Perfil etiológico dos pacientes implantados do Programa de Implante Coclear. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77 (1) 13-18
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bevilacqua MC, Costa AO, Moret ALM. Implante coclear em criança. In: Campos CAH, Costa HOO. Tratado de Otorrinolaringologia da Sociedade Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia. São Paulo, Brazil: Roca; 2003: 268-77
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Porto CPR. Avaliação de resultados de implante coclear em pacientes deficientes auditivos secundário à meningite [dissertation]. Campinas, Brazil: Universidade de Campinas; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Lima LI, Aiello CP, Ferrari DV. Correlações audiométricas do Questionário de Handicap Auditivo para Adultos. Rev CEFAC 2011; 13: 496-503
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar