Browsing by keyword "*Noise"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
Determining cochlear implant users' true noise tolerance: use of speech reception threshold in noise testingOBJECTIVE: The speech perception abilities of cochlear implant (CI) recipients have significantly improved over the past decade. At the same time, clinical test batteries to measure their performance in noise remain mostly unchanged, resulting in ceiling-level performance for the most successful recipients. The goal of this study is to determine the true noise tolerance abilities of CI recipients using adaptive speech reception threshold (SRT) in noise testing. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital; CI program. PATIENTS: Ten CI users, either unilateral or bilateral, with HINT scores that equaled or exceeded 80% when administered with a fixed +10 dB signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio (i.e., HINT(+10dB)). INTERVENTION: The HINT with adaptive SNR levels and QuickSIN test were administered to measure noise tolerance at speech thresholds where 50% of the stimuli were correctly perceived. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): SRTs were measured for both the adaptive SNR HINT (i.e., HINT(50%)) and the QuickSIN test. These SRTs were compared with the fixed noise level HINT(+10dB) scores as well as to CNC monosyllable word perception scores. RESULTS: Despite small variance in performance levels on the HINT(+10dB), results of the HINT(50%) ( approximately 16 dB range) and QuickSIN ( approximately 12 dB range) tests demonstrate significant differences in noise tolerance levels among these CI recipients. CONCLUSION: For excellent CI users, use of adaptive speech threshold tests in noise better defines a user's actual ability to perceive speech than do fixed SNR level tests. SRT-in-noise tests have the advantage of being quick to administer, and the same stimuli can be used over a very wide range of performance levels. The use of adaptive SRT-in-noise tests should be considered a viable and valuable replacement of fixed SNR tests in the CI clinical test battery.
-
Knowledge and Beliefs of EMS Providers toward Lights and Siren TransportationINTRODUCTION: The use of warning lights and siren (WLS) increases the risk of ambulance collisions. Multiple studies have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the patients. We sought to investigate the degree to which providers understand the data and incorporate it into their practice. METHODS: The authors distributed an anonymous survey to prehospital providers under their medical direction at staff and quality assurance meetings. The surveys asked the providers' degree of agreement with four statements: transport with lights and siren shortens transport times; transport with lights and siren improves patient outcome; transport with lights and siren increases the risk of collision during transport; and transport with lights and siren reduces the utilization of "mutual aid" service. We compared responses between providers who had been in prior ambulance collisions and those who had not. RESULTS: Few responses reached statistical significance, but respondents tended towards agreement that WLS use shortens transport times, that it does not improve outcomes, and that it increases the risk of collision. Despite the overall agreement with the published literature, respondents report > 80% of transports are conducted using WLS. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate the surveyed providers are aware of the risk posed by WLS to themselves, their patients, and the public. Nevertheless, their practice in the absence of rigid protocols suggests they disregard this knowledge. Despite a large number of prior ambulance collisions among the surveyed group, a high number of transports are conducted using WLS.
