Park Lisa R, Preston Elizabeth, Noxon Amy S, Dillon Margaret T
Department of Otolaryngology / Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Division of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Cochlear Implants Int. 2021 Sep;22(5):283-290. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2021.1903715. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare three test methods for isolating the test ear for children with single-sided deafness (SSD) who use a cochlear implant (CI).
Word recognition was assessed for five CI recipients with SSD and six bilateral CI recipients with no acoustic hearing. For the SSD subjects, performance was compared: 1) in the sound field with masking in the normal-hearing ear, 2) in the sound field with an earplug and earmuff ("plug-and-muff"), and 3) via direct connect (DC). For the bilateral CI subjects, performance was compared: 1) in the sound field and 2) via DC.
For the bilateral CI subjects, word recognition was similar when assessed in the sound field versus via DC. For the SSD subjects, performance was similar when assessed with the plug-and-muff and DC methods but was significantly poorer with masking presented to the normal-hearing ear.
Masking the normal-hearing ear to isolate the CI for word recognition is problematic in this population. The plug-and-muff and DC test methods may provide a more accurate assessment.
DC or plug-and-muff methods are recommended to isolate the CI-ear for word recognition testing in children with SSD. Patient specific variables should be considered.
本研究旨在比较三种测试方法,用于隔离使用人工耳蜗(CI)的单侧聋(SSD)儿童的测试耳。
对5名单侧聋人工耳蜗使用者和6名无听觉的双侧人工耳蜗使用者进行单词识别评估。对于单侧聋受试者,比较以下三种情况下的表现:1)在声场中对健侧耳进行掩蔽;2)在声场中使用耳塞和耳罩(“塞耳罩法”);3)通过直接连接(DC)。对于双侧人工耳蜗受试者,比较以下两种情况下的表现:1)在声场中;2)通过直接连接。
对于双侧人工耳蜗受试者,在声场中评估和通过直接连接评估时,单词识别能力相似。对于单侧聋受试者,使用塞耳罩法和直接连接法评估时表现相似,但在健侧耳进行掩蔽时表现明显较差。
在该人群中,通过掩蔽健侧耳来隔离人工耳蜗进行单词识别存在问题。塞耳罩法和直接连接测试方法可能提供更准确的评估。
建议使用直接连接法或塞耳罩法来隔离单侧聋儿童人工耳蜗侧耳进行单词识别测试。应考虑患者的具体变量。