| dc.description.abstract | Purpose: to evaluate and compare the performance of elderly people with descending hearing loss, still considering the presence or absence of dead regions in cochlea (DRs), in speech recognition tests, in silence and in noise, using auditory prostheses with and without the activation of the nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC). Materials and Methods: the study presents quantitative, observational, descriptive, and transversal traits. 48 subjects were evaluated: 33 men and 15 women, aged between 61 and 84 years, with mild to moderate hearing loss and descending configuration. In order to collect the data the Lists of Sentences in Portuguese test was used (LSP), seeking the Sentence Recognition Thresholds in Silence (LRSS), the Sentences Recognition Threshold in Noise (LRSR) expressed by the signal/noise relationship (S/R) and Percentage Index Sentence Recognition of Threshold in Silence (IPRSS) and in noise (IPRSR). The subjects were evaluated using binaural auditory prostheses, which had their adjustments verified through measurements with a probe microphone. All measurements were obtained using auditory prostheses both without the activation of the NLFC (SC) and with the activation of the NLFC (CC). For the analysis of collected data, the subjects were distributed in two formats; in one study the 48 subjects comprised a sample, in the other, considering the results obtained in the DRs identification test, the subjects distributed themselves in Group A (24 elderly people without evidence of DRs) and Group B (14 elderly people with evidence of DRs). Results: in the first study, a statistically significant difference between LRSS and IPRSS obtained using auditory prostheses SC and CC was observed, the latter being those that provided the better results. In the S/R relationship and in the IPRSR there was no statistically significant difference observed between the use of auditory prostheses SC and CC. In the second study analyzing the results of group A and B separately, in both a statistically significant difference in performance between the IPRSS obtained using auditory prostheses SC and CC, the latter being those that provided the better results. There was no difference observed in IPRSR. Comparing the groups, one verifies that there was no statistically significant difference in performance in IPRSS SC, IPRSS CC, and in IPRSR CC. Yet, the IPRSR SC presented statistically significant difference between the groups, the best being the performance of Group B. Conclusion: in the first study, the general sample presented statistically significant improvement in the measurements obtained in silence using auditory prostheses with CNLF if compared to the auditory prostheses without NLFC. In noise, no difference in performance was verified with or without NLFC. In the second study, both the group of subjects without and the group with DRs obtained statistically significant improvement in performance, in silence, using auditory prostheses with NLFC, in noise, however, there was no difference. Comparing the groups with and without DRs, the only measure that presented a significant difference was that obtained in noise with auditory prostheses without NLFC, in which the group with DRs obtained better performance than the group without DRs. | |
