TY - JOUR
T1 - Audiology Telemedicine Evaluations
T2 - Potential Expanded Applications
AU - Fletcher, Kyle T.
AU - Dicken, Frank W.
AU - Adkins, Margaret M.
AU - Cline, Trey A.
AU - McNulty, Beth N.
AU - Shinn, Jennifer B.
AU - Bush, Matthew L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2019.
PY - 2019/7/1
Y1 - 2019/7/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - cochlear implant
KW - teleaudiology
KW - telemedicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062684928&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062684928&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0194599819835541
DO - 10.1177/0194599819835541
M3 - Article
C2 - 30832542
AN - SCOPUS:85062684928
SN - 0194-5998
VL - 161
SP - 63
EP - 66
JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)
JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)
IS - 1
ER -