A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis
Objective: To compare the results of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) and speech recognition, of users of Cochlear Implant (CI) between CLABOX with Direct Audio Input (DAI) and the Sound Booth (SB). Methods: Fifty individuals with CIs, 33 adults and 17 children, were included. Speech recognition tests in...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869425000023 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850154014798249984 |
|---|---|
| author | Fernanda Ferreira Caldas Byaka Cagnacci Buzo Bruno Sanches Masiero Alice Andrade Takeuti Carolina Costa Cardoso Fabiane de Castro Vaz Fayez Bahmad, Jr. |
| author_facet | Fernanda Ferreira Caldas Byaka Cagnacci Buzo Bruno Sanches Masiero Alice Andrade Takeuti Carolina Costa Cardoso Fabiane de Castro Vaz Fayez Bahmad, Jr. |
| author_sort | Fernanda Ferreira Caldas |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: To compare the results of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) and speech recognition, of users of Cochlear Implant (CI) between CLABOX with Direct Audio Input (DAI) and the Sound Booth (SB). Methods: Fifty individuals with CIs, 33 adults and 17 children, were included. Speech recognition tests in noise fixed and adaptive were applied with the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), Ling test, and PTA, in the SB (in free field) and in CLABOX. Results: For speech recognition in noise, averages were better in the CLABOX; for PTA, they were higher in the CLABOX; and for Ling test, there was no significant change in the categories between SB and CLABOX. The fixed noise were higher in the CLABOX (88.3%) than in the SB (78.9%), p-value < 0.001. In the HINT with adaptive noise, the results were significant (p-value = 0.007); the S/N ratio was 2.14 dB in the CLABOX and 3.42 dB in the SB. For the four-tone average, the average thresholds for the CLABOX and the SB were 29.8 dB and 23 dB, respectively (p-values < 0.001). Conclusion: CLABOX was an effective tool to evaluate the PTA and speech recognition tests when compared to the conventional evaluation with a SB in the CI user population. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-f3b71877f74b4750ac3f5b6fbc6ea44f |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1808-8694 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology |
| spelling | doaj-art-f3b71877f74b4750ac3f5b6fbc6ea44f2025-08-20T02:25:34ZengElsevierBrazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology1808-86942025-05-0191310155910.1016/j.bjorl.2025.101559A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysisFernanda Ferreira Caldas0Byaka Cagnacci Buzo1Bruno Sanches Masiero2Alice Andrade Takeuti3Carolina Costa Cardoso4Fabiane de Castro Vaz5Fayez Bahmad, Jr.6Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Brasilia, DF, Brazil; Instituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia, Brasilia, DF, BrazilCochlear Latin America de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, BrazilUniversidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Engenharia Elétrica e Computação, Campinas, São Paulo, SP, BrazilUniversidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Brasilia, DF, BrazilInstituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia, Brasilia, DF, BrazilUniversidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Brasilia, DF, BrazilUniversidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Brasilia, DF, Brazil; Instituto Brasiliense de Otorrinolaringologia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil; Corresponding author.Objective: To compare the results of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) and speech recognition, of users of Cochlear Implant (CI) between CLABOX with Direct Audio Input (DAI) and the Sound Booth (SB). Methods: Fifty individuals with CIs, 33 adults and 17 children, were included. Speech recognition tests in noise fixed and adaptive were applied with the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), Ling test, and PTA, in the SB (in free field) and in CLABOX. Results: For speech recognition in noise, averages were better in the CLABOX; for PTA, they were higher in the CLABOX; and for Ling test, there was no significant change in the categories between SB and CLABOX. The fixed noise were higher in the CLABOX (88.3%) than in the SB (78.9%), p-value < 0.001. In the HINT with adaptive noise, the results were significant (p-value = 0.007); the S/N ratio was 2.14 dB in the CLABOX and 3.42 dB in the SB. For the four-tone average, the average thresholds for the CLABOX and the SB were 29.8 dB and 23 dB, respectively (p-values < 0.001). Conclusion: CLABOX was an effective tool to evaluate the PTA and speech recognition tests when compared to the conventional evaluation with a SB in the CI user population.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869425000023Cochlear implantSpeech perceptionAudiometry |
| spellingShingle | Fernanda Ferreira Caldas Byaka Cagnacci Buzo Bruno Sanches Masiero Alice Andrade Takeuti Carolina Costa Cardoso Fabiane de Castro Vaz Fayez Bahmad, Jr. A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Cochlear implant Speech perception Audiometry |
| title | A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| title_full | A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| title_fullStr | A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| title_short | A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| title_sort | novel cochlear implant assessment tool audiometric and speech recognition analysis |
| topic | Cochlear implant Speech perception Audiometry |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869425000023 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandaferreiracaldas anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT byakacagnaccibuzo anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT brunosanchesmasiero anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT aliceandradetakeuti anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT carolinacostacardoso anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT fabianedecastrovaz anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT fayezbahmadjr anovelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT fernandaferreiracaldas novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT byakacagnaccibuzo novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT brunosanchesmasiero novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT aliceandradetakeuti novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT carolinacostacardoso novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT fabianedecastrovaz novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis AT fayezbahmadjr novelcochlearimplantassessmenttoolaudiometricandspeechrecognitionanalysis |