Feasibility of Self-Programming of the Speech Processor Via Remote Assistant Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users.

Paola Angelica Samuel-Sierra, Maria Val��ria Schimidt Goffi-Gomez, Ana Tereza de Matos Magalh��es, Ricardo Ferreira Bento, Robinson Koji Tsuji
Author Information
  1. Paola Angelica Samuel-Sierra: Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Cl��nicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brazil. ORCID
  2. Maria Val��ria Schimidt Goffi-Gomez: Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Cl��nicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brazil. ORCID
  3. Ana Tereza de Matos Magalh��es: Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Cl��nicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brazil. ORCID
  4. Ricardo Ferreira Bento: Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Cl��nicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brazil. ORCID
  5. Robinson Koji Tsuji: Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Cl��nicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de S��o Paulo, S��o Paulo, SP, Brazil. ORCID

Abstract

���Adults with cochlear implants (CIs) need periodic programming of their speech processors to take advantage of alternative adjustments. However, this requires patients to attend the CI center in person. ���To evaluate the feasibility of speech processor (SP) self-programming with remote assistance in CI users. To establish the characteristics of those who could benefit from self-programming. ���Adults with at least 1 year of experience with their CI, and whose SP was compatible with the use of the remote assistant fitting (RAF) were selected. Maps were created by the RAF from the neural response telemetry (NRT) results, evaluated in the same session with the audiologist. patients were given 15-days to adjust to either the routine map or the NRT-based one. In the next session, the minimum and maximum stimulation levels (T- and C-levels) of all the maps were compared. ���No statistical difference was found when comparing the T- and C-levels of the map in use, the map adjusted by RAF, and the NRT-based map created by the RAF and adjusted by the patient. ���Self-programming of the SP was safe and feasible in the studied sample of adults, since T- and C-levels were similar between the behavioral and RAF-adjusted maps. We consider it advisable to use the RAF for patients who have insertion of electrodes and at least one functioning; as well as those who do not have changes in anatomy, nor motor and cognitive conditions that prevent RAF usage.

Keywords

References

  1. Audiol Neurootol. 2002 Nov-Dec;7(6):335-47 [PMID: 12401965]
  2. Otol Neurotol. 2019 Mar;40(3):e260-e266 [PMID: 30741905]
  3. Otol Neurotol. 2010 Aug;31(6):908-18 [PMID: 20418791]
  4. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Aug;37(7):e209-16 [PMID: 27228018]
  5. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014 Apr;34(2):111-6 [PMID: 24843221]
  6. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019 Mar;139(3):251-257 [PMID: 31056039]
  7. Audiol Res. 2012 Aug 14;2(1):e12 [PMID: 26557327]
  8. Ear Hear. 2006 Dec;27(6):789-98 [PMID: 17086087]
  9. Ear Hear. 2001 Aug;22(4):289-99 [PMID: 11527036]
  10. Cochlear Implants Int. 2005 Sep;6 Suppl 1:38-40 [PMID: 18792353]
  11. Ear Hear. 1999 Feb;20(1):45-59 [PMID: 10037065]
  12. Acta Otolaryngol. 1998 Jun;118(3):313-26 [PMID: 9655204]
  13. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020 Jul;21(4):179-191 [PMID: 31900086]
  14. Ear Hear. 2001 Dec;22(6):471-86 [PMID: 11770670]
  15. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016 Feb;41(1):51-8 [PMID: 26039905]
  16. Volta Rev. 2012 Winter;112(3):255-265 [PMID: 25221361]
  17. Cochlear Implants Int. 2010 Jun;11 Suppl 1:461-4 [PMID: 21756673]
  18. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 20;8(4):e019640 [PMID: 29678970]
  19. Int J Audiol. 2013 Jul;52(7):485-94 [PMID: 23617610]
  20. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2012 Feb;45(1):111-27 [PMID: 22115685]
  21. Artif Intell Med. 2007 May;40(1):15-28 [PMID: 16920343]
  22. Int J Audiol. 2002 Mar;41(2):93-9 [PMID: 12212861]
  23. Ear Hear. 2010 Jun;31(3):367-79 [PMID: 20124902]
  24. J Telemed Telecare. 2014 Mar 27;20(4):171-177 [PMID: 24675003]
  25. Codas. 2014 Nov-Dec;26(6):481-6 [PMID: 25590911]
  26. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014 Jul;134(7):709-16 [PMID: 24773208]
  27. Otol Neurotol. 2010 Sep;31(7):1035-40 [PMID: 20147864]
  28. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010 Dec;130(12):1379-88 [PMID: 20586675]
  29. Cochlear Implants Int. 2005 Dec;6(4):178-82 [PMID: 18792336]
  30. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009 May;129(5):533-40 [PMID: 18649152]
  31. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995 Sep;166:177-8 [PMID: 7668624]
  32. Ear Hear. 2007 Aug;28(4):558-70 [PMID: 17609616]
  33. Ear Hear. 2017 Jul/Aug;38(4):e232-e240 [PMID: 28125445]
  34. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 19;16:Doc04 [PMID: 29503669]
  35. Am J Audiol. 2016 Oct 01;25(3S):299-302 [PMID: 27768192]
  36. Cochlear Implants Int. 2010 Jun;11 Suppl 1:489-92 [PMID: 21756680]
  37. BMJ Open. 2016 May 13;6(5):e011342 [PMID: 27178980]
  38. Ear Hear. 2017 Nov/Dec;38(6):736-745 [PMID: 28671916]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RAFmapCISPremoteusefittingT-C-levels���Adultscochlearspeechpatientsself-programmingleastcreatedneuralresponsetelemetrysessionNRT-basedonemapsadjustedimplantsCIsneedperiodicprogrammingprocessorstakeadvantagealternativeadjustmentsHoweverrequiresattendcenterperson���Toevaluatefeasibilityprocessorassistanceusersestablishcharacteristicsbenefit1yearexperiencewhosecompatibleassistantselectedMapsNRTresultsevaluatedaudiologistPatientsgiven15-daysadjusteitherroutinenextminimummaximumstimulationlevelscompared���Nostatisticaldifferencefoundcomparingpatient���Self-programmingsafefeasiblestudiedsampleadultssincesimilarbehavioralRAF-adjustedconsideradvisableinsertionelectrodesfunctioningwellchangesanatomymotorcognitiveconditionspreventusageFeasibilitySelf-ProgrammingSpeechProcessorViaRemoteAssistantFittingExperiencedCochlearImplantUsersimplantdeafness

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.