Background Some patients still suffer from implicit memory of intraoperative events under adequate depth of anaesthesia. The elimination of implicit memory should be a necessary aim of clinical general anaesthesia. Ho...Background Some patients still suffer from implicit memory of intraoperative events under adequate depth of anaesthesia. The elimination of implicit memory should be a necessary aim of clinical general anaesthesia. However, implicit memory cannot be tested during anaesthesia yet. We propose bispectral index （BIS） and auditory evoked potential index （AEPI）, as predictors of implicit memory during anaesthesia. Methods Thirty-six patients were equally divided into 3 groups according to the Observer＇s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score： A, level 3; B, level 2 ;and C, level 1. Every patient was given the first auditory stimulus before sedation. Then every patient received the second auditory stimulus after the target level of sedation had been reached. BIS and AEPI were monitored before and after the second auditory stimulus presentation. Four hours later, the inclusion test and exclusion test were performed on the ward using process dissociation procedure and the scores of implicit memory estimated. Results In groups A and B but not C, implicit memory estimates were statistically greater than zero （P〈0.05）. The implicit memory scores in group A did not differ significantly from those in group B （P〉0.05）. Implicit memory scores correlated with BIS and AEPI （P〈0.01）. The area under ROC curve is BIS〉 AEPI. The 95% cutoff points of BIS and AEPI for predicting implicit memory are 47 and 28, respectively. Conclusions Implicit memory does not disappear until the depth of sedation increases to level 1 of OAA/S score. Implicit memory scores correlate well with BIS and AEPI during sedation. BIS is a better index for predicting implicit memory than AEPI during propofol induced sedation.展开更多
目的探讨3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆句子能力的差异。方法选取24例3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童及14例同龄健听儿童,听障儿童再按助听时间1~2年(10例)和2~3年(14例)分为两组,以言语听觉反应评估(evaluation of audi...目的探讨3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆句子能力的差异。方法选取24例3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童及14例同龄健听儿童,听障儿童再按助听时间1~2年(10例)和2~3年(14例)分为两组,以言语听觉反应评估(evaluation of auditory response to speech,EARS)中封闭式句子测试的两组图片分别对各组儿童进行测试,比较听障及健听儿童通过听觉完整记忆句子的正确率及平均次数。结果在记忆两组测试句的正确率方面,助听时间2~3年听障儿童第一组测试句的正确率是57.14%,与健听儿童的正确率(58.93%)接近,助听时间1~2年听障儿童的语句的正确率仅为32.5%,低于其他两组儿童;助听时间2~3年听障儿童第二组测试句的正确率是44.64%,高于助听时间1~2年听障儿童的正确率(22.5%),健听儿童的语句的正确率为55.36%,高于听障儿童组。健听、助听2~3年和助听1~2年听障儿童正确记忆第一组测试句的平均次数分别为2.36±1.08、2.29±1.68、1.30±1.25次,三组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但是在第二组测试句测试中,助听1~2年的听障儿童正确记忆句子的次数(0.90±0.57次)明显低于健听儿童(2.21±0.89次)(P<0.01)和助听2~3年听障儿童组(1.79±1.89次)(P<0.05),而助听2~3年的听障儿童组与健听儿童组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论本组3~4岁听障儿童通过听觉正确记忆句子的能力随着助听时间的延长而提高,并逐渐接近同龄健听儿童,这一能力也受到测试内容的影响。展开更多
目的比较4岁听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆词汇的测试结果，探讨两类儿童词汇记忆的差异。方法选取4岁听障儿童24名（其中助听时间1～2年的10名，助听时间2～3年的14名）和健听儿童14名，采用言语听觉反应评估（evaluation of aud ito...目的比较4岁听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆词汇的测试结果，探讨两类儿童词汇记忆的差异。方法选取4岁听障儿童24名（其中助听时间1～2年的10名，助听时间2～3年的14名）和健听儿童14名，采用言语听觉反应评估（evaluation of aud itoryresponse to speech，EARS）中的封闭式句子测试内容分别对儿童进行测试，比较其结果。结果①在记忆句中名词、形容词方面，3组儿童之间不存在显著性差异（P〉0．05）；②在记忆句中动词方面，助听时间1～2年与2～3年的听障儿童之间存在极显著性差异（P〈0．01），助听时间1～2年的听障儿童与健听儿童之间也存在显著性差异（P〈0．05），但助听时间2～3年的听障儿童与健听儿童之间不存在显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论①助听时间越长，听障儿童通过听觉记忆句子中词汇的能力越强；②助听时间的长短影响听障儿童在记忆不同词性词汇方面的能力，这为听障儿童听觉训练提供了参考依据。展开更多
文摘Background Some patients still suffer from implicit memory of intraoperative events under adequate depth of anaesthesia. The elimination of implicit memory should be a necessary aim of clinical general anaesthesia. However, implicit memory cannot be tested during anaesthesia yet. We propose bispectral index （BIS） and auditory evoked potential index （AEPI）, as predictors of implicit memory during anaesthesia. Methods Thirty-six patients were equally divided into 3 groups according to the Observer＇s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score： A, level 3; B, level 2 ;and C, level 1. Every patient was given the first auditory stimulus before sedation. Then every patient received the second auditory stimulus after the target level of sedation had been reached. BIS and AEPI were monitored before and after the second auditory stimulus presentation. Four hours later, the inclusion test and exclusion test were performed on the ward using process dissociation procedure and the scores of implicit memory estimated. Results In groups A and B but not C, implicit memory estimates were statistically greater than zero （P〈0.05）. The implicit memory scores in group A did not differ significantly from those in group B （P〉0.05）. Implicit memory scores correlated with BIS and AEPI （P〈0.01）. The area under ROC curve is BIS〉 AEPI. The 95% cutoff points of BIS and AEPI for predicting implicit memory are 47 and 28, respectively. Conclusions Implicit memory does not disappear until the depth of sedation increases to level 1 of OAA/S score. Implicit memory scores correlate well with BIS and AEPI during sedation. BIS is a better index for predicting implicit memory than AEPI during propofol induced sedation.
文摘目的探讨3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆句子能力的差异。方法选取24例3~4岁经康复训练的听障儿童及14例同龄健听儿童,听障儿童再按助听时间1~2年(10例)和2~3年(14例)分为两组,以言语听觉反应评估(evaluation of auditory response to speech,EARS)中封闭式句子测试的两组图片分别对各组儿童进行测试,比较听障及健听儿童通过听觉完整记忆句子的正确率及平均次数。结果在记忆两组测试句的正确率方面,助听时间2~3年听障儿童第一组测试句的正确率是57.14%,与健听儿童的正确率(58.93%)接近,助听时间1~2年听障儿童的语句的正确率仅为32.5%,低于其他两组儿童;助听时间2~3年听障儿童第二组测试句的正确率是44.64%,高于助听时间1~2年听障儿童的正确率(22.5%),健听儿童的语句的正确率为55.36%,高于听障儿童组。健听、助听2~3年和助听1~2年听障儿童正确记忆第一组测试句的平均次数分别为2.36±1.08、2.29±1.68、1.30±1.25次,三组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但是在第二组测试句测试中,助听1~2年的听障儿童正确记忆句子的次数(0.90±0.57次)明显低于健听儿童(2.21±0.89次)(P<0.01)和助听2~3年听障儿童组(1.79±1.89次)(P<0.05),而助听2~3年的听障儿童组与健听儿童组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论本组3~4岁听障儿童通过听觉正确记忆句子的能力随着助听时间的延长而提高,并逐渐接近同龄健听儿童,这一能力也受到测试内容的影响。
文摘目的比较4岁听障儿童与健听儿童通过听觉记忆词汇的测试结果，探讨两类儿童词汇记忆的差异。方法选取4岁听障儿童24名（其中助听时间1～2年的10名，助听时间2～3年的14名）和健听儿童14名，采用言语听觉反应评估（evaluation of aud itoryresponse to speech，EARS）中的封闭式句子测试内容分别对儿童进行测试，比较其结果。结果①在记忆句中名词、形容词方面，3组儿童之间不存在显著性差异（P〉0．05）；②在记忆句中动词方面，助听时间1～2年与2～3年的听障儿童之间存在极显著性差异（P〈0．01），助听时间1～2年的听障儿童与健听儿童之间也存在显著性差异（P〈0．05），但助听时间2～3年的听障儿童与健听儿童之间不存在显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论①助听时间越长，听障儿童通过听觉记忆句子中词汇的能力越强；②助听时间的长短影响听障儿童在记忆不同词性词汇方面的能力，这为听障儿童听觉训练提供了参考依据。
