↓ Skip to main content

Telephone Usage and Cochlear Implant: Auditory Training Benefits

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Telephone Usage and Cochlear Implant: Auditory Training Benefits
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1390301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aline Sousa, Ana Carvalho, Maria Couto, Robinson Tsuji, Maria Goffi-Gomez, Ricardo Bento, Carla Matas, Debora Befi-Lopes

Abstract

Introduction Difficulties with telephone use by adult users of cochlear implants (CIs) are reported as a limitation in daily life. Studies to improve the speech understanding of CI users on the telephone are scarce in the Brazilian scientific literature. Objective To develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a training program of auditory abilities on the telephone for an adult CI user. Resumed Report The subject was a 55-year-old woman with a degree in accounting who used a CI for 24 months. The program consisted of three stages: pretraining evaluation, eight sessions of advanced auditory abilities training, and post-training evaluation. Auditory abilities with CI were evaluated before and after training in three conditions: sound field, telephone with the speech processor in the microphone function, and telephone with the speech processor in the telecoil function. Speech recognition was assessed by three different lists: one with monosyllabic and dissyllabic words, another with nonsense syllables, and another one with sentences. The Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) was used to assess whether the needs established by the CI user in everyday telephone use situations improved after training. The auditory abilities training resulted in a relevant improvement in the percentage of correct answers in speech tests both in the telephone use conditions and in the sound field condition. Conclusion The results obtained with the COSI inventory indicated a performance improvement in all situations presented at the beginning of the program.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,292
of 362,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.