Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: This study examined the relationships between electrophysiological measures of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) with speech perception measured in quiet after cochlear implantation (CI) to identify the ability of EABR to predict postoperative CI outcomes.
Methods: Thirty-four patients with congenital prelingual hearing loss, implanted with the same manufacturer's CI, were recruited. In each participant, the EABR was evoked at apical, middle, and basal electrode locations. The following EABR measures were analyzed: wave III and V input/output (I/O) function, latency, threshold, threshold and Gibson scoring. Patients' speech perception abilities were assessed using the Mandarin Speech Perception (MSP) materials presented in quiet. The Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) were also used to assess CI outcomes. A regression model was developed to explore the relationship between EABR and each speech measure, to identify parameters with significant predictive ability.
Results: A significantly shorter eV latency, lower eV threshold, lower eV threshold and steeper I/O slopes for both eV and eIII were observed when these responses were evoked at the apical electrode, compared to the middle and basal positions. Implantation age was significantly negatively correlated with bisyllables recognition rate (R = 0.20, p = 0.0194). The eIII slope at the apical site and the eV slope at the basal site demonstrated the highest R2 values in positive correlation with CAP, both with R = 0.09. Among the EABR parameters, the regression models based on MSP bisyllables recognition rate, basal eV latency, eV thresholds and threshold recorded at the apical and middle positions were statistically significant.
Conclusions: Our study identified an apex-to-base gradient in EABR responsiveness following prolonged CI use. The threshold and I/O slopes of EABR appear to be informative predictors of speech perception performance in CI users, especially in the low-to-middle frequency range. However, further validation is needed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-09185-9 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!