MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2554848255 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15138

Factors Affecting Daily Cochlear Implant Use in Children: Datalogging Evidence

2016· article· en· W2554848255 sur OpenAlexaff
Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, Blake C. Papsin, Karen A. Gordon

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAudiologyActive listeningMedicineCochlear implantHearing lossLimitingPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with profound hearing loss can gain access to sound through cochlear implants (CIs), but these devices must be worn consistently to promote auditory development. Although subjective parent reports have identified several factors limiting long-term CI use in children, it is also important to understand the day-to-day issues which may preclude consistent device use. In the present study, objective measures gathered through datalogging software were used to quantify the following in children: (1) number of hours of CI use per day, (2) practical concerns including repeated disconnections between the external transmission coil and the internal device (termed "coil-offs"), and (3) listening environments experienced during daily use. PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) objectively measure daily CI use and factors influencing consistent device use in children using one or two CIs and (2) evaluate the intensity levels and types of listening environments children are exposed to during daily CI use. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Measures of daily CI use were obtained from 146 pediatric users of Cochlear Nucleus 6 speech processors. The sample included 5 unilateral, 40 bimodal, and 101 bilateral CI users (77 simultaneously and 24 sequentially implanted). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Daily CI use, duration, and frequency of coil-offs per day, and the time spent in multiple intensity ranges and environment types were extracted from the datalog saved during clinic appointments. Multiple regression analyses were completed to predict daily CI use based on child-related demographic variables, and to evaluate the effects of age on coil-offs and environment acoustics. RESULTS: Children used their CIs for 9.86 ± 3.43 hr on average on a daily basis, with use exceeding 9 hr per day in ∼64% of the children. Daily CI use reduced significantly with increasing durations of coil-off (p = 0.027) and increased significantly with longer CI experience (p < 0.001) and pre-CI acoustic experience (p < 0.001), when controlled for the child's age. Total time in sound (sum of CI and pre-CI experience) was positively correlated with CI use (r = 0.72, p < 0.001). Longer durations of coil-off were associated with higher frequency of coil-offs (p < 0.001). The frequency of coil-offs ranged from 0.99 to 594.10 times per day and decreased significantly with age (p < 0.001). Daily CI use and frequency of coil-offs did not vary significantly across known etiologies. Listening environments of all children typically ranged between 50 and 70 dBA. Children of all ages were exposed to speech in noisy environments. Environment classified as "music" was identified more often in younger children. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of children use their CIs consistently, even during the first year of implantation. The frequency of coil-offs is a practical challenge in infants and young children, and demonstrates the need for improved coil retention methods for pediatric use. Longer hearing experience and shorter coil-off time facilitates consistent CI use. Children are listening to speech in noisy environments most often, thereby indicating a need for better access to binaural cues, signal processing, and stimulation strategies to aid listening. Study findings could be useful in parent counseling of young and/or new CI users.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,485
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,806

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,078
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations55
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologyMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207