↓ Skip to main content

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials with Simple (Tone Burst) and Complex (Speech) Stimuli in Children with Cochlear Implant

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials with Simple (Tone Burst) and Complex (Speech) Stimuli in Children with Cochlear Implant
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1600122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves Martins, Daniela Gil

Abstract

Introduction  The registry of the component P1 of the cortical auditory evoked potential has been widely used to analyze the behavior of auditory pathways in response to cochlear implant stimulation. Objective  To determine the influence of aural rehabilitation in the parameters of latency and amplitude of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential component elicited by simple auditory stimuli (tone burst) and complex stimuli (speech) in children with cochlear implants. Method  The study included six individuals of both genders aged 5 to 10 years old who have been cochlear implant users for at least 12 months, and who attended auditory rehabilitation with an aural rehabilitation therapy approach. Participants were submitted to research of the cortical auditory evoked potential at the beginning of the study and after 3 months of aural rehabilitation. To elicit the responses, simple stimuli (tone burst) and complex stimuli (speech) were used and presented in free field at 70 dB HL. The results were statistically analyzed, and both evaluations were compared. Results  There was no significant difference between the type of eliciting stimulus of the cortical auditory evoked potential for the latency and the amplitude of P1. There was a statistically significant difference in the P1 latency between the evaluations for both stimuli, with reduction of the latency in the second evaluation after 3 months of auditory rehabilitation. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the amplitude of P1 under the two types of stimuli or in the two evaluations. Conclusion  A decrease in latency of the P1 component elicited by both simple and complex stimuli was observed within a three-month interval in children with cochlear implant undergoing aural rehabilitation.

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 %
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Engineering 5 14%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,837
of 308,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 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 646 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 308,141 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 33 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.