Use of Telehealth for Research and Clinical Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Validation Study
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 55, Number 4
Pages 1112-1127
Abstract
Purpose
The goal of this study was to compare clinical and research-based cochlear implant (CI) measures using telehealth versus traditional methods.
Method
This prospective study used an ABA design (A = laboratory, B = remote site). All measures were made twice per visit for the purpose of assessing within-session variability. Twenty-nine adult and pediatric CI recipients participated. Measures included electrode impedance, electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds, psychophysical thresholds using an adaptive procedure, map thresholds and upper comfort levels, and speech perception. Subjects completed a questionnaire at the end of the study.
Results
Results for all electrode-specific measures revealed no statistically significant differences between traditional and remote conditions. Speech perception was significantly poorer in the remote condition, which was likely due to the lack of a sound booth. In general, subjects indicated that they would take advantage of telehealth options at least some of the time, if such options were available.
Conclusions
Results from this study demonstrate that telehealth is a viable option for research and clinical measures. Additional studies are needed to investigate ways to improve speech perception at remote locations that lack sound booths and to validate the use of telehealth for pediatric services (e.g., play audiometry), sound-field threshold testing, and troubleshooting equipment.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abbas, P. J., Brown, C. J., Shallop, J. K., Firszt, J. B., Hughes, M. L., Hong, S. H., & Staller, S. J. (1999). Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear and Hearing, 20, 45–59.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). Audiologists providing clinical services via telepractice. ASHA Supplement, 25, 1–8.
Bench, J., Kowal, A., & Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford–Kowal–Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British Journal of Audiology, 13, 108–112.
Beutelmann, R., & Brand, T. (2006). Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 331–342.
Botros, A., van Djik, B., & Killian, M. (2007). AutoNRT™: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus® Freedom™ cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 40, 15–28.
Choi, J. M., Lee, H. B., Park, C. S., Oh, S. H., & Park, K. S. (2007). PC-based tele-audiometry. Telemedicine and e-Health, 13, 501–508.
Denton, D. R., & Gladstone, V. S. (2005). Ethical and legal issues related to telepractice. Seminars in Hearing, 26, 43–52.
Franck, K., Pengelly, M., & Zerfoss, S. (2006). Telemedicine offers remote cochlear implant programming. Volta Voices, 13, 16–19.
Givens, G. D., & Elangovan, S. (2003). Internet applications to tele-audiology—“Nothin' but Net.”. American Journal of Audiology, 12, 59–65.
International Organization for Standardization. (1997). Acoustics: Measurement of the reverberation time of rooms with reference to other acoustic parameters [ISO 3382]. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Krumm, M., Huffman, T., Dick, K., & Klich, R. (2008). Telemedicine for audiology screening of infants. Journal of Telemed Telecare, 14, 102–104.
Krumm, M., Ribera, J., & Klich, R. (2007). Providing basic hearing tests using remote computing technology. Journal of Telemed Telecare, 13, 406–410.
McElveen, J. T., Blackburn, E. L., Green, J. D., McLear, P. W., Thimsen, D. J., & Wilson, B. S. (2010). Remote programming of cochlear implants: A telecommunications model. Otology & Neurotology, 31, 1035–1040.
Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085–1099.
Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 62–70.
Poissant, S. F., Whitmal, N. A., III, & Freyman, R. L. (2006). Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1606–1615.
Ramos, A., Rodríguez, C., Martinez-Beneyto, P., Perez, D., Gault, A., Falcon, J. C., & Boyle, P. (2009). Use of telemedicine in the remote programming of cochlear implants. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 129, 533–540.
Ribera, J. E. (2005). Interjudge reliability and validation of telehealth applications of the Hearing in Noise Test. Seminars in Hearing, 26, 13–18.
Shapiro, W. H., Huang, T., Shaw, T., Roland, T., & Lalwani, A. K. (2008). Remote intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implant surgery is feasible and efficient. Otology & Neurotology, 29, 495–498.
Towers, A. D., Pisa, J., Froelich, T. M., & Krumm, M. (2005). The reliability of click-evoked and frequency-specific auditory brainstem response testing using telehealth technology. Seminars in Hearing, 26, 26–34.
van Dijk, B., Botros, A. M., Battmer, R., Begall, K., Dillier, N., Hey, M., & Offeciers, E. (2007). Clinical results of AutoNRT™, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 28, 558–570.
Wesarg, T., Wasowski, A., Skarzynski, H., Ramos, A., Gonzalez, J. C. F., Kyriafinis, G., & Laszig, R. (2010). Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 130, 1379–1388.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Aug 26, 2011
- Accepted: Nov 22, 2011
- Published in issue: Aug 1, 2012
Key Words
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Metrics
View all metricsCitations
Download article citation data for:
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Citing Literature
- Ayden M. Cauchi, Jaina Negandhi, Sharon L. Cushing, Karen A. Gordon, Automatic Speech Recognition Technology to Evaluate an Audiometric Word Recognition Test: A Preliminary Investigation, Speech Communication, 10.1016/j.specom.2025.103270, (103270), (2025).
- Fernanda Ferreira Caldas, Byaka Cagnacci Buzo, Bruno Sanches Masiero, Alice Andrade Takeuti, Carolina Costa Cardoso, Fabiane de Castro Vaz, Fayez Bahmad, A novel cochlear implant assessment tool: Audiometric and speech recognition analysis, Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 10.1016/j.bjorl.2025.101559, 91, 3, (101559), (2025).
- Luis Lassaletta, Miryam Calvino, Isabel Sánchez-Cuadrado, Giovanni Danesi, Ilaria Patelli, Michela Zana, Íñigo Ruiz de Erenchun-Lasa, Manuela del Carmen Zapata, Eva María Muñoz Yuste, Daniel Schaudel, Cherisse Mark, Gionata Conni, Pedro Luis Sarría Echegaray, Guillermo til-Pérez, Isaac David Gutiérrez Pérez, Elena Muñoz Pascual, Evaluation of remote programming of cochlear implants under challenging conditions, Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española, 10.1016/j.otorri.2024.10.002, 76, 2, (91-98), (2025).
- Luis Lassaletta, Miryam Calvino, Isabel Sánchez-Cuadrado, Giovanni Danesi, Ilaria Patelli, Michela Zana, Íñigo Ruiz de Erenchun-Lasa, Manuela del Carmen Zapata, Eva María Muñoz Yuste, Daniel Schaudel, Cherisse Mark, Gionata Conni, Pedro Luis Sarría Echegaray, Guillermo til-Pérez, Isaac David Gutiérrez Pérez, Elena Muñoz Pascual, Evaluation of remote programming of cochlear implants under challenging conditions, Acta Otorrinolaringologica (English Edition), 10.1016/j.otoeng.2025.02.002, 76, 2, (91-98), (2025).
- Meredith A. Holcomb, Jennifer Coto, Tina Stern, Christina M. Sarangoulis, Ivette Cejas, Chrisanda M. Sanchez, Remote Care: The Future of Cochlear Implants, Otology & Neurotology, 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004432, 46, 4, (372-380), (2025).
- Chen Yuan, Exploring the feasibility of remote administration of speech audiometry: A comparative study of conventional and digital methods, DIGITAL HEALTH, 10.1177/20552076241271834, 10, (2024).
- Bhanu Shukla, Deborah Moncrieff, Can Videoconferencing Be a Viable Method to Measure Speech Perception?, American Journal of Audiology, 10.1044/2024_AJA-22-00249, 33, 2, (465-475), (2024).
- Gideon Hot Partogi Sinaga, Johannes Elia Susanto, Filza Amara Kamila Harlena, Sakina Oktavianti, Rizki Amalia Putri, Prasandhya Astagiri Yusuf, Harim Priyono, Cochlear implant performance in children deafened by torch infection: Scoping review, THE 7TH BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING’S RECENT PROGRESS IN BIOMATERIALS, DRUGS DEVELOPMENT, AND MEDICAL DEVICES: The 15th Asian Congress on Biotechnology in conjunction with the 7th International Symposium on Biomedical Engineering (ACB-ISBE 2022), 10.1063/5.0203457, (110001), (2024).
- Eman Hajr, Auroabah Almufleh, Tahani Alotaibi, Caregivers’ Satisfaction with Telemedicine for Aural Rehabilitation of Cochlear Implant Patients during Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Cross-sectional Study, Saudi Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 10.4103/sjoh.sjoh_65_23, 26, 1, (23-29), (2023).
- Danielle DiFabio, Sheila Moodie, Robin O’Hagan, Simrin Pardal, Danielle Glista, Barriers and facilitators to paediatric caregivers’ participation in virtual speech, language, and hearing services: A scoping review, DIGITAL HEALTH, 10.1177/20552076231216684, 9, (2023).
- See more
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login