Evaluating the Feasibility of Using Remote Technology for Cochlear Implants

Abstract

The use of remote technology to provide cochlear implant services has gained popularity in recent years. This article contains a review of research evaluating the feasibility of remote service delivery for recipients of cochlear implants. To date, published studies have determined that speech-processor programming levels and other objective tests (electrode impedance and electrically evoked compound action potentials) are equivalent to those obtained in the face-to-face condition. Despite these promising findings, speech perception using remote technology has proven to be more challenging. Previous investigations have evaluated speech perception with recipients of cochlear implants using videoconference (Polycom) equipment in nonsound-treated rooms (due to lack of access to audiological sound booths in rural areas). Results have revealed poorer speech perception scores using remote technology compared to face-to-face results. Additionally, it has been shown that Polycom transmission of a speech stimulus does not cause significant compression for adequate evaluation; rather, poorer results are due to testing performed in nonsound-treated environments. Based on the literature, telepractice is a feasible option for cochlear implant service delivery. Barriers to the wide-spread use of remote services for recipients of cochlear implants include a uniform system for the evaluation of speech perception, validation of services for pediatric recipients and initial activations, license reciprocity, and reimbursement for services.

The Value of a Learning Community to Support Telepractice for Infants and Toddlers with Hearing Loss

“…Few studies have assessed the use of telepractice for CI service delivery (Franck, Pengelly, & Zerfoss, 2006;Goehring et al, 2012;Hughes et al, 2012;McElveen et al, 2010;Shapiro, Huang, Shaw, Roland, & Lalwani, 2008;Wesarg et al, 2010). Franck and colleagues (2006) were one of the first groups to describe their experiences with CI programming via remote technology at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.…”

“…The Hybrid system, which was designed to eliminate compression issues associated with transferring speech stimuli across a videoconference system, allowed the examiner to play uncompressed stimuli from a speaker at the subject's site. Each subject's speech perception was evaluated using the same assessments as in Hughes et al (2012). Background noise and reverberation measurements were also assessed for each environment.…”

“…Hayes, Eclavea, Dreith, and Habte (2012) describe a pilot project providing diagnostic audiological evaluations to children in Guam while the professionals conducting the evaluations reside in Denver, Colorado. A contribution by Goehring, Hughes, and Baudhuin (2012) describes a successful attempt to program cochlear implants remotely.…”

Teleprogramação dos sistemas de implante coclear

“…Em nosso estudo, não encontramos diferença estatisticamente significante nos limiares audiométricos obtidos na PR e PP. Estes resultados corroboram com outros estudos da literatura (Ramos et al, 2009;McElveen et al, 2010.;Wesarg et al, 2010;Hughes et al, 2012;Eikelboom et al, 2014) (Ramos et al, 2009;Rodriguez et al, 2010;Wesarg et al, 2010) utilizaram o mesmo software, mas é possível realizar a mesma transmissão de áudio e vídeo por meio de outros programas comerciais (Zumpano et al, 2009;Wesarg et al, 2010;Goehring et al, 2012aGoehring et al, , 2012bHughes et al, 2012;Kuzovkov et al, 2014).…”

Delivering The Parent-Implemented Communication Strategies (pics) Intervention Using Distance Training And Coaching With A Father And His Child Who Is Hard Of Hearing

“…Further, there have been no empirical studies conducted with this population in which training and coaching are delivered, for any type of intervention, to parents primarily from a distance using internet technologies. Some EI services are delivered directly to children in their natural environments, sometimes directly to children over the internet (Goehring, Hughes, & Baudhuin, 2012), or not in children's natural environments (Pilkington & Malinowski, 2002).…”