Publication: Üniversite eğitimi alan koklear implant kullanıcılarının okuma, bilişsel ve işitsel işlemleme becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi
Abstract
Üniversite eğitimi alan koklear implant kullanıcılarının okuma, bilişsel ve işitsel işlemleme becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, üniversite eğitimi almış koklear implant (Kİ) kullanıcıları ile benzer eğitim düzeyine sahip normal işiten bireylerin okuma, bilişsel ve işitsel işlemleme becerilerini karşılaştırmak ve bu beceriler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. İkincil amaç ise Kİ kullanıcılarının demografik bilgileri ile çalışmada değerlendirilen beceriler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya yaş, cinsiyet ve kortikal maturasyon açısından eşleştirilmiş 30 normal işiten birey ve 30 Kİ kullanıcısı dahil edilmiştir. Katılımcıların okuma hızları Formel Olmayan Okuma Envanteri’nden bir metin kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca katılımcılara, Fonemik Sözel Akıcılık (FSA) testi, İşitsel Sözel Öğrenme Testi (İSÖT), P300, Frekans Patern Testi (FPT) ve Gürültüde Boşluk Tanıma (GBT) testleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Okuma hızı, FSA, FPT ve GBT testleri normal işiten bireylerde anlamlı olarak daha iyiydi. Ancak İSÖT ve P300 sonuçları gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık göstermemiştir. Her iki grupta, değerlendirilen beceriler arasında anlamlı korelasyonlar tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, Kİ kullanıcılarında işitsel (re)habilitasyona başlama yaşı ile okuma hızı arasında anlamlı korelasyonlar tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Üniversite eğitimi almış Kİ kullanıcıları, normal işiten akranlarına göre daha kötü okuma hızına ve işitsel işlemleme becerilerine sahip olsalar da öğrenme ve hafıza performansları benzerdir. Ayrıca, her iki grupta da bu becerileri etkileyen farklı faktörler olabilir.
Evaluation of reading, cognitive and auditory processing skills of university educated cochlear ımplant users Objective: The aim of study was to compare the reading, cognitive and auditory processing skills of university educated cochlear implant (CI) users and normal hearing individuals with similar levels of education and to examine the relationship between these skills. A secondary aim was to examine the relationship between the demographic information of CI users and the skills that were assessed in the study. Materials and Methods: This study included 30 normal hearing individuals and 30 CI users who were matched for age, gender and cortical maturation. The reading speed of the participants was determined by using a text from the Informal Reading Inventory. Additionally, the Phonemic Verbal Fluency (PVF) test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), P300, Frequency Pattern Test (FPT), and Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) tests were performed. Results: Reading speed, PVF, FPT and GIN tests were significantly better in normal hearing individuals. However, AVLT and P300 results were not significantly different between the groups. Significant correlations were identified between the skills assessed in both groups. Furthermore, significant correlations were identified between the age at start of auditory (re)habilitation and reading speed in CI users. Conclusion: Although university educated CI users have worse reading speed and auditory processing skills than their normal hearing peers, their learning and memory performance is similar. In addition, there may be different factors affecting these skills in both groups.
Evaluation of reading, cognitive and auditory processing skills of university educated cochlear ımplant users Objective: The aim of study was to compare the reading, cognitive and auditory processing skills of university educated cochlear implant (CI) users and normal hearing individuals with similar levels of education and to examine the relationship between these skills. A secondary aim was to examine the relationship between the demographic information of CI users and the skills that were assessed in the study. Materials and Methods: This study included 30 normal hearing individuals and 30 CI users who were matched for age, gender and cortical maturation. The reading speed of the participants was determined by using a text from the Informal Reading Inventory. Additionally, the Phonemic Verbal Fluency (PVF) test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), P300, Frequency Pattern Test (FPT), and Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) tests were performed. Results: Reading speed, PVF, FPT and GIN tests were significantly better in normal hearing individuals. However, AVLT and P300 results were not significantly different between the groups. Significant correlations were identified between the skills assessed in both groups. Furthermore, significant correlations were identified between the age at start of auditory (re)habilitation and reading speed in CI users. Conclusion: Although university educated CI users have worse reading speed and auditory processing skills than their normal hearing peers, their learning and memory performance is similar. In addition, there may be different factors affecting these skills in both groups.