Department of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Jan;33(1):13-9. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31823c9335.
To compare the speech understanding abilities of cochlear implant listeners using 2 microphone technologies, the Otologics fully implantable Carina and the Cochlear Freedom microphones.
Feasibility study using direct comparison of the 2 microphones, nonrandomized and nonblinded within case studies.
Tertiary referral center hospital outpatient clinic.
Four subjects with greater than 1 year of unilateral listening experience with the Freedom Cochlear Implant and a CNC word score higher than 40%.
A Carina microphone coupled to a percutaneous plug was implanted on the ipsilateral side of the cochlear implant. Two months were allowed for healing before connecting to the Carina microphone. The percutaneous plug was connected to a body worn external processor with output leads inserted into the auxiliary port of the Freedom processor. Subjects were instructed to use each of the 2 microphones for half of their daily implant use.
Aided pure tone thresholds, consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC), Bamford-Kowel-Bench Speech in Noise test (BKN-SIN), and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit.
All subjects had sound perceptions using both microphones. The loudness and quality of the sound was judged to be poorer with the Carina in the first 2 subjects. The latter 2 demonstrated essential equivalence in the second two listeners, with the exception of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit reporting greater percentage of problems for the Carina in the background noise situation for subject 0011-003PP. CNC word scores were better with the Freedom than the Carina in all 4 subjects. The latter 2 showed improved speech perception abilities with the Carina, compared with the first 2. The BKB-SIN showed consistently better results with the Freedom in noise.
Early observations indicate that it is potentially feasible to use the fully implanted Carina microphone with the Freedom Cochlear Implant. The authors would anticipate that outcomes would improve as more knowledge is gained in signal processing and with the fabrication of an integrated device.
比较使用两种麦克风技术（奥图罗吉克斯完全植入式卡丽娜和科利尔自由麦克风）的人工耳蜗植入者的言语理解能力。
在案例内进行非随机、非盲的两种麦克风直接比较的可行性研究。
三级转诊中心医院门诊。
4 名受试者均有超过 1 年单侧使用自由人工耳蜗的听力经验，且 CNC 单词得分高于 40%。
将卡丽娜麦克风耦合到经皮插头，并植入人工耳蜗的同侧。在连接到卡丽娜麦克风之前，需要留出 2 个月的愈合时间。将经皮插头连接到佩戴式外部处理器，并用输出导线插入自由处理器的辅助端口。受试者被指示在每天使用人工耳蜗的一半时间中使用两种麦克风中的每一种。
助听纯音阈值、辅音-核-辅音（CNC）、巴姆福德-科威尔-本恩噪声下言语测试（BKN-SIN）和助听设备效益简明评估。
所有受试者都能通过两种麦克风感知声音。前 2 名受试者认为卡丽娜的声音响亮且质量较差。在后 2 名受试者中，除了 0011-003PP 号受试者在背景噪声情况下，卡丽娜的助听设备效益简明评估报告显示出更多问题外，他们的表现基本相同。在所有 4 名受试者中，自由的 CNC 单词得分均优于卡丽娜。后 2 名受试者的卡丽娜言语感知能力较前 2 名有所提高。BKB-SIN 在噪声中始终显示出自由的更好结果。
早期观察表明，使用完全植入式卡丽娜麦克风与自由人工耳蜗配合使用具有潜在的可行性。随着信号处理方面知识的增加和集成设备的制造，作者预计结果会有所改善。
