Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
Titulo:

Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
.

Sumario:

Objetivo. Este estudio identificó si los usuarios de implantes cocleares (IC) están percibiendo una disminución en la calidad de su vida debido a problemas de voz. Además, evaluó la percepción de la voz de 43 usuarios de IC y cómo afecta su calidad de vida a través de una encuesta. Enfoque. Cuarenta y tres usuarios de IC respondieron a una encuesta sobre su demografía, detalles sobre su IC, la Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), la Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) y el Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Las respuestas de la encuesta se analizaron mediante un análisis de regresión lineal univariado. Resultados. Pocos usuarios de IC puntuaron por debajo del límite para calidad de vida relacionada con la voz. El promedio V-RQOL fue de 93,4/... Ver más

Guardado en:

Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud

2665-2056

Bottalico, Pasquale

Plachno, Abel

Nudelman, Charles

FUNDACION UNIVERSITARIA MARIA CANO

10.46634/riics.232

5

2023-11-30

69

92

Colombia

Implante coclear

Voice Related Quality of Life

Voice Handicap Index

Hearing Health Quick Test

calidad de voz

disfunción vocal

pérdida de la audición

calidad de vida

exposición al ruido

tinnitus

Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2023

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

id metarevistapublica_fumc_revistadeinvestigacioneinnovacionencienciasdelasalud_67_article_232
record_format ojs
institution FUNDACION UNIVERSITARIA MARIA CANO
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/FUNDACIONUNIVERSITARIAMARIACANO/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
title Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
spellingShingle Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
Bottalico, Pasquale
Plachno, Abel
Nudelman, Charles
Implante coclear
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
calidad de voz
disfunción vocal
pérdida de la audición
calidad de vida
exposición al ruido
tinnitus
Cochlear implant
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
voice quality
vocal dysfunction
hearing loss
quality of life
noise exposure
tinnitus
title_short Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
title_full Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
title_fullStr Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
title_full_unstemmed Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
title_sort calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
description Objetivo. Este estudio identificó si los usuarios de implantes cocleares (IC) están percibiendo una disminución en la calidad de su vida debido a problemas de voz. Además, evaluó la percepción de la voz de 43 usuarios de IC y cómo afecta su calidad de vida a través de una encuesta. Enfoque. Cuarenta y tres usuarios de IC respondieron a una encuesta sobre su demografía, detalles sobre su IC, la Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), la Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) y el Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Las respuestas de la encuesta se analizaron mediante un análisis de regresión lineal univariado. Resultados. Pocos usuarios de IC puntuaron por debajo del límite para calidad de vida relacionada con la voz. El promedio V-RQOL fue de 93,4/100; solo 4 participantes tuvieron puntuación anormal en VHI-10. Las bajas puntuaciones en V-RQOL se correlacionaron con título de asociado y menos visitas por pérdida auditiva; las puntuaciones VHI-10, con sexo, educación, dificultad en situaciones sociales, exposición al ruido y tinnitus. Limitaciones del estudio. La pequeña n fue la principal limitación de este estudio. Originalidad. Este estudio fue uno de los primeros en examinar la calidad de vida relacionada con la voz en usuarios de CI. Conclusiones. En general, los encuestados no percibieron mucha dificultad relacionada con la voz. Sin embargo, era más probable que percibieran dificultades relacionadas con la voz si tenían dificultades para oír en ruido y evitaban situaciones sociales debido a la pérdida auditiva.  
description_eng Objective. The aim of this study was to identify if cochlear implant (CI) users are perceiving a decrease in life quality due to voice problems. This study evaluated 43 CI user’s perception of their voice and how it affects their quality of life through a survey. Approach. Forty-three CI users responded to a survey regarding their demographics, details about their CI, the Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), the Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL), and the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). The survey responses were analyzed using univariate linear regression analysis. Results. Few of the CI users scored below the cut off for normal voice related quality of life. CI users averaged 93.4 out of 100 on the V-RQOL and only four scored abnormally for the VHI-10. Lower scores on the V-RQOL were correlated with the participants having an associate degree and with participants visiting friends, family, and neighbors less often due to hearing loss. The VHI-10 scores were correlated with gender, education levels, difficulty in social situations due to hearing loss, noise exposure, and tinnitus. Limitations of the study. The small n was the primary limitation of this study. Originality. This study was one of the first to examine the voice-related quality of life in CI users. Conclusions. Overall, respondents did not perceive much voice-related difficulty. However, they were more likely to perceive voice-related difficulty if they experienced difficulty hearing in noise and avoided social situations due to hearing loss.
author Bottalico, Pasquale
Plachno, Abel
Nudelman, Charles
author_facet Bottalico, Pasquale
Plachno, Abel
Nudelman, Charles
topicspa_str_mv Implante coclear
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
calidad de voz
disfunción vocal
pérdida de la audición
calidad de vida
exposición al ruido
tinnitus
topic Implante coclear
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
calidad de voz
disfunción vocal
pérdida de la audición
calidad de vida
exposición al ruido
tinnitus
Cochlear implant
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
voice quality
vocal dysfunction
hearing loss
quality of life
noise exposure
tinnitus
topic_facet Implante coclear
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
calidad de voz
disfunción vocal
pérdida de la audición
calidad de vida
exposición al ruido
tinnitus
Cochlear implant
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
voice quality
vocal dysfunction
hearing loss
quality of life
noise exposure
tinnitus
citationvolume 5
citationissue 2
publisher Fundación Universitaria María Cano
ispartofjournal Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
source https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/232
language eng
format Article
rights https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2023
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
references_eng National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). Quick Statistics About Hearing [Internet]. 2021 Mar 25.. Available from: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing 2. Mildner V, Liker M. Fricatives, affricates, and vowels in Croatian children with cochlear implants. Clin Linguist Phon [Internet]. 2008 Jan;22(10–11):845–56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200802130557 3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Cochlear Implants. [Internet]. 2004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1044/policy.TR2004-00041 4. Oticon Medical. Cochlear implants - a modern miracle | Oticon Medical. [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.oticonmedical.com/us/cochlear-implants 5. Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hearing Implants. Cochlear. [Internet]. 2022. [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/products-and-accessories/cochlear-nucleus-system/nucleus-implants 6. van der Jagt MA, Briaire JJ, Verbist BM, Frijns JHM. Comparison of the HiFocus Mid-Scala and HiFocus 1J Electrode Array: Angular Insertion Depths and Speech Perception Outcomes. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(5):316-25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448581 7. MED-EL Pro. MED-EL Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays. [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/products/electrode-arrays 8. Aronoff JM, Stelmach J, Padilla M, Landsberger DM. Interleaved processors improve cochlear implant patients' spectral resolution. Ear Hear. 2016;37(2):e85-e90. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000249 9. Staisloff HE, Aronoff JM. Comparing methods for pairing electrodes across ears with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2021;42(5):1218-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001006 10. MED-EL Pro. Why MED-EL: Cochlear Implants. [Internet] [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/systems/cochlear-implant-system 11. Iddings T. Cochlear Implants for Adults: Evaluation, Implantation and Outcomes. 2022 Oct 17. 12. Eshraghi AA, Ahmed J, Krysiak E, Ila K, Ashman P, Telischi FF, et al. Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137(4):384-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2016.1256499 13. Zanetti D, Nassif N, Redaelli De Zinis LO. Factors affecting residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2015;35(6):433-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-619 14. Schafer EC, Miller S, Manning J, Zhang Q, Lavi A, Bodish E, et al. Meta-Analysis of Speech Recognition Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3):241-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00141 15. Forli F, Lazzerini F, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, Berrettini S. Cochlear Implant in the Elderly: Results in Terms of Speech Perception and Quality of Life. Audiol Neurootol. 2019;24(2):77-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000499176 16. Bourn SS, Goldstein MR, Morris SA, Jacob A. Cochlear implant outcomes in the very elderly. Am J Otolaryngol. 2022;43(1):103200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103200 17. McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Bhenswala PN, Nguyen SA, Dubno JR. General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(6):745-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002225 18. McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, Franko-Tobin E, Droghini R, Nguyen SA, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):982-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26738 19. Luo X, Kern A, Pulling KR. Vocal emotion recognition performance predicts the quality of life in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;144(5):EL429-35.. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5079575 20. Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L, Vasil K, Wuchini T, Pisoni DB, et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things? Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):959-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26791 21. Abbs E, Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, O’Brien E, Harmon B. Cochlear Implant Users’ Vocal Control Correlates Across Tasks. J Voice. 2020;34(3): 490e.7-490e.10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.10.008 22. Liu H, Behroozmand R, Larson CR. Chapter 9.3 - Audio-vocal interactions in the mammalian brain. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience. Vol 19. Elsevier; 2010. p. 393-402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374593-4.00036-X 23. Zamani P, Bayat A, Saki N, Ataee E, Bagheripour H. Post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users’ speech and voice characteristics: Cochlear implant turned-on versus turned-off. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141(4): 367-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1866778 24. Frankford SA, Marks KL, Feaster TF, Doyle PC, Stepp CE. Symptom Expression Across Voiced Speech Sounds in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia. J Voice. Forthcoming 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.10.002 25. Medved DMS, Cavalheri LMR, Coelho AC, Fernandes ACN, da Silva EM, Sampaio AL.et al. Systematic Review of Auditory Perceptual and Acoustic Characteristics of the Voice of Cochlear Implant Adult Users. J Voice. 2021;35(6):934.e7-934.e16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.023 26. Teixeira JP, Oliveira C, Lopes C. Vocal Acoustic Analysis – Jitter, Shimmer and HNR Parameters. Procedia Technol. 2013;9:1112-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.124 27. Li G, Hou Q, Zhang C, Jiang Z, Gong S. Acoustic parameters for the evaluation of voice quality in patients with voice disorders. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(1):118-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-2102 28. Ruff S, Bocklet T, Nöth E, Müller J, Hoster E, Schuster M. Speech Production Quality of Cochlear Implant Users with Respect to Duration and Onset of Hearing Loss. ORL. 2017;79(5): 282-294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000479819 29. An YS, Kim ST, Chung JW. Preoperative Voice Parameters Affect the Postoperative Speech Intelligibility in Patients with Cochlear Implantation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;5(suppl 1):S69-S72. Available from: https://www.e-ceo.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3342/ceo.2012.5.S1.S69 30. Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, Abbs E, Harmon B. When singing with cochlear implants, are two ears worse than one for perilingually/postlingually deaf individuals? J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;143(6):EL503-EL508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5043093 31. Kirchner A, Loucks TM, Abbs E, Shi K, Yu KS, Aronoff JM. Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147(4):2423-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001099 32. Timmons Sund L, Collum JA, Bhatt NK, Hapner ER. VHI-10 Scores in a Treatment-Seeking Population With Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2023 Mar;37(2):290.e1-290.e6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.12.017 33. Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, Zullo T, Murry T. Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(9):1549-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009 34. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice. 1999;13(4):557-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80010-1 35. Kupfer RA, Hogikyan EM, Hogikyan ND. Establishment of a Normative Database for the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) Measure. J Voice. 2014;28(4):449-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.11.003 36. Hsu H-W, Fang T-J, Lee L-A, Tsou Y-T, Chen SH, Wu C-M. Multidimensional evaluation of vocal quality in children with cochlear implants: a cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol [Internet]. 2014 Feb;39(1):32–8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.12213 37. Cappellaro J, Beber BC. Vocal Tract Discomfort and Voice-Related Quality of Life in Wind Instrumentalists. J Voice. 2018;32(3):314-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.05.011 38. Spina AL, Maunsell R, Sandalo K, Gusmão R, Crespo A. Correlation between voice and life quality and occupation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(2):275-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30790-4 39. Cantor Cutiva LC, Burdorf A. Factors Associated with Voice-Related Quality of Life among Teachers with Voice Complaints. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:134-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.05.003 40. Lu D, Wen B, Yang H, Chen F, Liu J, Xu Y., et al. A Comparative Study of the VHI-10 and the V-RQOL for Quality of Life Among Chinese Teachers With and Without Voice Disorders. J Voice. 2017;31(4):509.e1-509.e6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.025 41. Alarouj H, Althekerallah JM, AlAli H, Ebrahim MA, Ebrahim MAK. A Comparative Study Utilizing the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) in Teachers and the General Population of Kuwait. J Voice. 2022;36(2):289.e1-289.e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.006 42. Moy FM, Hoe VCW, Hairi NN, Chu AHY, Bulgiba A, Koh D. Determinants and Effects of Voice Disorders among Secondary School Teachers in Peninsular Malaysia Using a Validated Malay Version of VHI-10. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141963 43. Cohen SM, Turley R. Coprevalence and impact of dysphonia and hearing loss in the elderly. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(9):1870-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20590 44. Colby S, Orena AJ. Recognizing Voices Through a Cochlear Implant: A Systematic Review of Voice Perception, Talker Discrimination, and Talker Identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022;65(8):3165-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00209 45. Tourville JA, Guenther FH. The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process [Internet]. 2011 Aug;26(7):952–81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424 46. Guo M, Li S, Liu J, Sun F. Family Relations, Social Connections, and Mental Health Among Latino and Asian Older Adults. Research on Aging [Internet]. 2014 Feb 23;37(2):123–47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027514523298
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2023-11-30
date_accessioned 2023-11-30T16:21:14Z
date_available 2023-11-30T16:21:14Z
url https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/232
url_doi https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.232
eissn 2665-2056
doi 10.46634/riics.232
citationstartpage 69
citationendpage 92
url3_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/849
url4_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/850
url2_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/851
_version_ 1811200651384848384
spelling Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares
Objetivo. Este estudio identificó si los usuarios de implantes cocleares (IC) están percibiendo una disminución en la calidad de su vida debido a problemas de voz. Además, evaluó la percepción de la voz de 43 usuarios de IC y cómo afecta su calidad de vida a través de una encuesta. Enfoque. Cuarenta y tres usuarios de IC respondieron a una encuesta sobre su demografía, detalles sobre su IC, la Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), la Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) y el Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Las respuestas de la encuesta se analizaron mediante un análisis de regresión lineal univariado. Resultados. Pocos usuarios de IC puntuaron por debajo del límite para calidad de vida relacionada con la voz. El promedio V-RQOL fue de 93,4/100; solo 4 participantes tuvieron puntuación anormal en VHI-10. Las bajas puntuaciones en V-RQOL se correlacionaron con título de asociado y menos visitas por pérdida auditiva; las puntuaciones VHI-10, con sexo, educación, dificultad en situaciones sociales, exposición al ruido y tinnitus. Limitaciones del estudio. La pequeña n fue la principal limitación de este estudio. Originalidad. Este estudio fue uno de los primeros en examinar la calidad de vida relacionada con la voz en usuarios de CI. Conclusiones. En general, los encuestados no percibieron mucha dificultad relacionada con la voz. Sin embargo, era más probable que percibieran dificultades relacionadas con la voz si tenían dificultades para oír en ruido y evitaban situaciones sociales debido a la pérdida auditiva.  
Objective. The aim of this study was to identify if cochlear implant (CI) users are perceiving a decrease in life quality due to voice problems. This study evaluated 43 CI user’s perception of their voice and how it affects their quality of life through a survey. Approach. Forty-three CI users responded to a survey regarding their demographics, details about their CI, the Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), the Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL), and the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). The survey responses were analyzed using univariate linear regression analysis. Results. Few of the CI users scored below the cut off for normal voice related quality of life. CI users averaged 93.4 out of 100 on the V-RQOL and only four scored abnormally for the VHI-10. Lower scores on the V-RQOL were correlated with the participants having an associate degree and with participants visiting friends, family, and neighbors less often due to hearing loss. The VHI-10 scores were correlated with gender, education levels, difficulty in social situations due to hearing loss, noise exposure, and tinnitus. Limitations of the study. The small n was the primary limitation of this study. Originality. This study was one of the first to examine the voice-related quality of life in CI users. Conclusions. Overall, respondents did not perceive much voice-related difficulty. However, they were more likely to perceive voice-related difficulty if they experienced difficulty hearing in noise and avoided social situations due to hearing loss.
Bottalico, Pasquale
Plachno, Abel
Nudelman, Charles
Implante coclear
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
calidad de voz
disfunción vocal
pérdida de la audición
calidad de vida
exposición al ruido
tinnitus
Cochlear implant
Voice Related Quality of Life
Voice Handicap Index
Hearing Health Quick Test
voice quality
vocal dysfunction
hearing loss
quality of life
noise exposure
tinnitus
5
2
Artículo de revista
Journal article
2023-11-30T16:21:14Z
2023-11-30T16:21:14Z
2023-11-30
text/html
text/xml
application/pdf
Fundación Universitaria María Cano
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
2665-2056
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/232
10.46634/riics.232
https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.232
eng
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2023
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
69
92
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). Quick Statistics About Hearing [Internet]. 2021 Mar 25.. Available from: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing 2. Mildner V, Liker M. Fricatives, affricates, and vowels in Croatian children with cochlear implants. Clin Linguist Phon [Internet]. 2008 Jan;22(10–11):845–56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200802130557 3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Cochlear Implants. [Internet]. 2004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1044/policy.TR2004-00041 4. Oticon Medical. Cochlear implants - a modern miracle | Oticon Medical. [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.oticonmedical.com/us/cochlear-implants 5. Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hearing Implants. Cochlear. [Internet]. 2022. [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/products-and-accessories/cochlear-nucleus-system/nucleus-implants 6. van der Jagt MA, Briaire JJ, Verbist BM, Frijns JHM. Comparison of the HiFocus Mid-Scala and HiFocus 1J Electrode Array: Angular Insertion Depths and Speech Perception Outcomes. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(5):316-25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448581 7. MED-EL Pro. MED-EL Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays. [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/products/electrode-arrays 8. Aronoff JM, Stelmach J, Padilla M, Landsberger DM. Interleaved processors improve cochlear implant patients' spectral resolution. Ear Hear. 2016;37(2):e85-e90. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000249 9. Staisloff HE, Aronoff JM. Comparing methods for pairing electrodes across ears with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2021;42(5):1218-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001006 10. MED-EL Pro. Why MED-EL: Cochlear Implants. [Internet] [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/systems/cochlear-implant-system 11. Iddings T. Cochlear Implants for Adults: Evaluation, Implantation and Outcomes. 2022 Oct 17. 12. Eshraghi AA, Ahmed J, Krysiak E, Ila K, Ashman P, Telischi FF, et al. Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137(4):384-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2016.1256499 13. Zanetti D, Nassif N, Redaelli De Zinis LO. Factors affecting residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2015;35(6):433-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-619 14. Schafer EC, Miller S, Manning J, Zhang Q, Lavi A, Bodish E, et al. Meta-Analysis of Speech Recognition Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3):241-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00141 15. Forli F, Lazzerini F, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, Berrettini S. Cochlear Implant in the Elderly: Results in Terms of Speech Perception and Quality of Life. Audiol Neurootol. 2019;24(2):77-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000499176 16. Bourn SS, Goldstein MR, Morris SA, Jacob A. Cochlear implant outcomes in the very elderly. Am J Otolaryngol. 2022;43(1):103200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103200 17. McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Bhenswala PN, Nguyen SA, Dubno JR. General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(6):745-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002225 18. McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, Franko-Tobin E, Droghini R, Nguyen SA, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):982-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26738 19. Luo X, Kern A, Pulling KR. Vocal emotion recognition performance predicts the quality of life in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;144(5):EL429-35.. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5079575 20. Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L, Vasil K, Wuchini T, Pisoni DB, et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things? Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):959-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26791 21. Abbs E, Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, O’Brien E, Harmon B. Cochlear Implant Users’ Vocal Control Correlates Across Tasks. J Voice. 2020;34(3): 490e.7-490e.10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.10.008 22. Liu H, Behroozmand R, Larson CR. Chapter 9.3 - Audio-vocal interactions in the mammalian brain. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience. Vol 19. Elsevier; 2010. p. 393-402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374593-4.00036-X 23. Zamani P, Bayat A, Saki N, Ataee E, Bagheripour H. Post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users’ speech and voice characteristics: Cochlear implant turned-on versus turned-off. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141(4): 367-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1866778 24. Frankford SA, Marks KL, Feaster TF, Doyle PC, Stepp CE. Symptom Expression Across Voiced Speech Sounds in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia. J Voice. Forthcoming 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.10.002 25. Medved DMS, Cavalheri LMR, Coelho AC, Fernandes ACN, da Silva EM, Sampaio AL.et al. Systematic Review of Auditory Perceptual and Acoustic Characteristics of the Voice of Cochlear Implant Adult Users. J Voice. 2021;35(6):934.e7-934.e16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.023 26. Teixeira JP, Oliveira C, Lopes C. Vocal Acoustic Analysis – Jitter, Shimmer and HNR Parameters. Procedia Technol. 2013;9:1112-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.124 27. Li G, Hou Q, Zhang C, Jiang Z, Gong S. Acoustic parameters for the evaluation of voice quality in patients with voice disorders. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(1):118-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-2102 28. Ruff S, Bocklet T, Nöth E, Müller J, Hoster E, Schuster M. Speech Production Quality of Cochlear Implant Users with Respect to Duration and Onset of Hearing Loss. ORL. 2017;79(5): 282-294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000479819 29. An YS, Kim ST, Chung JW. Preoperative Voice Parameters Affect the Postoperative Speech Intelligibility in Patients with Cochlear Implantation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;5(suppl 1):S69-S72. Available from: https://www.e-ceo.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3342/ceo.2012.5.S1.S69 30. Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, Abbs E, Harmon B. When singing with cochlear implants, are two ears worse than one for perilingually/postlingually deaf individuals? J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;143(6):EL503-EL508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5043093 31. Kirchner A, Loucks TM, Abbs E, Shi K, Yu KS, Aronoff JM. Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147(4):2423-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001099 32. Timmons Sund L, Collum JA, Bhatt NK, Hapner ER. VHI-10 Scores in a Treatment-Seeking Population With Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2023 Mar;37(2):290.e1-290.e6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.12.017 33. Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, Zullo T, Murry T. Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(9):1549-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009 34. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice. 1999;13(4):557-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80010-1 35. Kupfer RA, Hogikyan EM, Hogikyan ND. Establishment of a Normative Database for the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) Measure. J Voice. 2014;28(4):449-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.11.003 36. Hsu H-W, Fang T-J, Lee L-A, Tsou Y-T, Chen SH, Wu C-M. Multidimensional evaluation of vocal quality in children with cochlear implants: a cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol [Internet]. 2014 Feb;39(1):32–8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.12213 37. Cappellaro J, Beber BC. Vocal Tract Discomfort and Voice-Related Quality of Life in Wind Instrumentalists. J Voice. 2018;32(3):314-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.05.011 38. Spina AL, Maunsell R, Sandalo K, Gusmão R, Crespo A. Correlation between voice and life quality and occupation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(2):275-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30790-4 39. Cantor Cutiva LC, Burdorf A. Factors Associated with Voice-Related Quality of Life among Teachers with Voice Complaints. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:134-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.05.003 40. Lu D, Wen B, Yang H, Chen F, Liu J, Xu Y., et al. A Comparative Study of the VHI-10 and the V-RQOL for Quality of Life Among Chinese Teachers With and Without Voice Disorders. J Voice. 2017;31(4):509.e1-509.e6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.025 41. Alarouj H, Althekerallah JM, AlAli H, Ebrahim MA, Ebrahim MAK. A Comparative Study Utilizing the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) in Teachers and the General Population of Kuwait. J Voice. 2022;36(2):289.e1-289.e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.006 42. Moy FM, Hoe VCW, Hairi NN, Chu AHY, Bulgiba A, Koh D. Determinants and Effects of Voice Disorders among Secondary School Teachers in Peninsular Malaysia Using a Validated Malay Version of VHI-10. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141963 43. Cohen SM, Turley R. Coprevalence and impact of dysphonia and hearing loss in the elderly. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(9):1870-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20590 44. Colby S, Orena AJ. Recognizing Voices Through a Cochlear Implant: A Systematic Review of Voice Perception, Talker Discrimination, and Talker Identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022;65(8):3165-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00209 45. Tourville JA, Guenther FH. The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process [Internet]. 2011 Aug;26(7):952–81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424 46. Guo M, Li S, Liu J, Sun F. Family Relations, Social Connections, and Mental Health Among Latino and Asian Older Adults. Research on Aging [Internet]. 2014 Feb 23;37(2):123–47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027514523298
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/849
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/850
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/232/851
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Text
Publication

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares