Craddock L, Cooper H, van de Heyning P, Vermeire K, Davies M, Patel J, Cullington H, Ricaud R, Brunelli T, Knight M, Plant K, Dees D Cafarelli, Murray B
Midlands Adult Cochlear Implant Programme, UK.
Cochlear Implants Int. 2003 Dec;4(4):161-70. doi: 10.1179/cim.2003.4.4.161.
Seventeen adult subjects participated in a multicentre trial to compare the performance between an NRT-based MAP and their behavioural MAP. The NRT-based MAP was made using a correction factor to predict T/C levels, calculated from the difference between the ECAP threshold ('T-NRT') and the measured T/C levels at electrode 10, as described by Brown et al. (2000). A secondary aim was to compare T/C levels in behavioural MAPs at different stimulation rates with the predicted T/C levels in NRT-based MAPs. Performance with both MAPs was evaluated using CNC words and sentences. Variations in the T/C levels between all MAPs were found, although results of the speech discrimination tests demonstrated no statistically significant difference between behavioural and NRT-based MAPs.
17名成年受试者参与了一项多中心试验，以比较基于NRT的言语听觉评估图谱（MAP）与行为学言语听觉评估图谱之间的性能。基于NRT的言语听觉评估图谱是使用一个校正因子来预测T/C水平制作而成的，该校正因子根据听性脑干反应（ECAP）阈值（“T-NRT”）与电极10处测得的T/C水平之间的差异计算得出，如Brown等人（2000年）所述。第二个目的是比较不同刺激率下行为学言语听觉评估图谱中的T/C水平与基于NRT的言语听觉评估图谱中预测的T/C水平。使用CNC单词和句子对两种言语听觉评估图谱的性能进行了评估。尽管言语辨别测试结果表明行为学言语听觉评估图谱与基于NRT的言语听觉评估图谱之间没有统计学上的显著差异，但在所有言语听觉评估图谱之间均发现T/C水平存在差异。
