Skip to content

Technical innovations for fitting and rehabilitation of adult CI users

Technical innovations for fitting and rehabilitation of adult CI users - Technical innovations for CI users

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON47186
Enrollment
82
Registered
2018-05-28
Start date
2015-09-28
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2024-02-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

hearing impairment hearing loss

Interventions

AutoNRT
cochlear implant
Multiple programs
Remote tests

Sponsors

VUmc
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 64 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged 18 years or older (all study parts); Patients with at least 1 year of CI experience after activation (study parts I, II, III and IV with experienced CI users); Newly implanted CI patients who enrol in the clinic's standard rehabilitation program after cochlear implantation (study part IV with newly implanted CI patients); Patients with onset of severe hearing impairment after the age of 7 years (all study parts); Native Dutch speakers (study parts I, II and III); Fluent Dutch speakers (study part IV); Patients using a Nucleus 6 CP900 processor (study part IV); Patients using a Nucleus 6 CP900, Nucleus 7 CP1000 or Kanso CP950 processor (study part I); Patients using a nucleus 5 or 6 CP800 or CP900 processor and the Freedom implant, with full insertion and 22 active electrodes (study part II)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Disability which could interfere with the completion of the tests (i.e. psychiatric problems, dyslexia or severe health problems); Additional handicaps that may prevent participation in evaluations; Patients with deviating map parameters (i.e., number of maxima, or pulses per second (PPS) (additional criterion for study part II)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
1. Type of listening environments and the use of different programs compared to SCAN 2. Speech intelligibility test results to assess the effect of an AutoNRT based MAP compared to the speech intelligibility results with a standard T- and C-level MAP. 3. Speech intelligibility test results under different circumstances to assess the reliability of remote testing 4. Evaluation of a web based service for counselling of cochlear implant users and for monitoring of their performance

Countries

The Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)