Comparação entre respostas auditivas de estado estável e avaliação comportamental em crianças candidatas ao implante coclear

Beck, Roberto Miquelino de Oliveira

doi:10.11606/t.5.2015.tde-11082015-145155

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This procedure has as principle the conditioning of the child with sound stimulus associated to a light signal, and at the moment the child searches for the sound source, the examiner offers a visual stimulus as reinforcement 4 . When performed by air pathway (with earphones) and by bone pathway (with vibrator), this method assists in the identification of conductive alterations (in the presence of air -bone gap), however its performance, both by air and by bone is only reliable after six months of life 5 , requiring the principle of cross-check with other methods of evaluation such as Auditory Evoked Potentials (AEP) by specific frequency to complete the audiological diagnosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Reinforcement Audiometry and Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential in infants with and without conductive impairment

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: to compare the findings of minimum levels of answers through air and bone conductions between the Visual Reinforcement Audiometry and the Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential in infants from six to twelve months, with and without conductive disorder. Methods: sixty children aged six to twelve months were evaluated, 30 presenting conductive disorder, and 30 not presenting it. Children with malformation in the external auditory meatus with neurological alteration and / or genetic syndrome were excluded, as well as patients with sensorineural or mixed hearing loss. The infants were subjected to Visual Reinforcement Audiometry and Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential evaluation through air and bone conduction on the same day. The results of both assessments were compared and correlated. Results: in the comparison through air conduction, for the group without conductive disorder of the medium ear, the minimum levels of response for 500 and 1000Hz were lower (better thresholds) for Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential in both ears, and through bone conduction were very similar in all frequencies. Concerning the infants that present conductive disorder, the responses through air conduction were better in all frequencies evaluated when obtained via Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential test. Through bone conduction, the results were very similar for both groups. Conclusion: it was possible to compare the findings to the minimum levels of response through air and bone conductions between the Visual Reinforcement Audiometry and the Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential, being that the comparison for bone conduction in both groups presents an equivalence in the results, being very similar. In addition, for the air conduction, in the control group, there was proximity of responses of some frequencies, while the values for the Steady-State Auditory Evoked Potential test were better than the behavioral responses in the conductive disorder group.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%