Have Cochlear Implant, Won't Have to Travel: Introducing Telemedicine to People Using Cochlear Implants

Cullington, H.E.; Kitterick, Pádraig T.; DeBold, Lisa; Weal, Mark J.; Clarke, Nicholas; Newberry, Eva; Aubert, Lisa

doi:10.1044/2016_aja-16-0018

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior uses of telemedicine have used the technology to perform remote mapping and programming, [15][16][17][18][19] postimplantation testing, 20,21 remote intraoperative monitoring, 22 and remote clinical care of their cochlear implants. 23 This study is the first of its kind attempting to administer cochlear implant evaluations using telemedicine technology. In our pilot study, AzBio scores were similar between inperson and telemedicine testing methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiology Telemedicine Evaluations: Potential Expanded Applications

Fletcher

Dicken

Adkins

et al. 2019

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is underutilization of cochlear implants with delays in implantation linked to distance from implant centers. Telemedicine could connect cochlear implant specialists with patients in rural locations. We piloted telemedicine cochlear implant testing in a small study, largely composed of normal-hearing volunteers to trial this new application of teleaudiology technology. Thirteen subjects (8 with normal hearing and 5 with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound) underwent a traditional cochlear implant evaluation in person and then via telemedicine technology. Routine audiometry, word recognition testing, and Arizona Biological Test (AzBio) and consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) testing were performed. Mean (SD) percent difference in AzBio between in-person and remote testing was 1.7% (2.06%). Pure tone average (PTA), speech reception threshold (SRT), and word recognition were similar between methods. CNC testing showed a mean (SD) difference of 6.8% (10.2%) between methods. Testing conditions were acceptable to audiologists and subjects. Further study to validate this method in cochlear implant candidates and a larger population is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiology Telemedicine Evaluations: Potential Expanded Applications

Fletcher

Dicken

Adkins

et al. 2019

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have found that CI recipients' and audiologists' experience using telemedicine services is highly positive (Rodríguez et al, 2010;Swanepoel & Hall, 2010;Wasowski et al, 2010;Wesarg et al, 2010;Eikelboom et al, 2014;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;Goehring & Hughes, 2017;Slager et al, 2019;Eikelboom et al, 2021). According to Cullington et al (2016), adult CI recipients who wear their devices during every waking hour are open to the idea of making telehealth part of their device management routine. Similarly, a study by Cullington and Aidi (2017) indicated that most adult CI recipients could administer a remote speech perception test in a simulated home environment and indicated a preference for the above clinic tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remote Monitoring of Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Digits-in-Noise Self-Testing

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the uptake and scope of telehealth. This study determined the accuracy and reliability of a smartphone digits-in-noise (DIN) test when conducted by adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a simulated home environment compared with a clinic setup. Perceptions of remote monitoring using speech-in-noise (SIN) testing were also explored. Method: Thirty-three adult CI recipients between 18 and 78 years of age ( M = 46.7, SD = ±20.4) conducted the DIN test in a simulated home environment and a clinic setup. Test–retest reliability across the two environments and comparisons between test settings were evaluated. A survey explored the perceptions of adult CI recipients regarding remote monitoring and use of the DIN self-test. Results: Mean-aided speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in the clinic and simulated home environment test conditions and clinic and simulated home environment retest conditions did not differ significantly. Mean test–retest SRTs in the clinic and simulated home environment were significantly different ( p < .05). High intraclass correlation coefficient and low standard error of measurement scores reflected good and excellent reliability between test–retest measures and between clinic and simulated home environment measures. Most participants were positive about the possibility of using the DIN test at home to self-assess speech perception, although some test adjustments such as including training items and a less adverse starting signal-to-noise ratio may be required. Conclusion: Adult CI recipients can use the smartphone DIN test to self-assess aided SIN performance in a home environment with accuracy and reliability relatively similar to clinic testing. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044418

show abstract