Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation

Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Audiology & neurotology 2006, Vol.11 (Suppl 1), p.57-62
Hauptverfasser: James, Chris J., Fraysse, Bernard, Deguine, Olivier, Lenarz, Thomas, Mawman, Deborah, Ramos, Ángel, Ramsden, Richard, Sterkers, Olivier
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 62
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page 57
container_title Audiology & neurotology
container_volume 11
creator James, Chris J.
Fraysse, Bernard
Deguine, Olivier
Lenarz, Thomas
Mawman, Deborah
Ramos, Ángel
Ramsden, Richard
Sterkers, Olivier
description Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. Soft surgical procedures were strictly observed: ≤1.5-mm cochleostomy hole placed anterior and inferior to the round window, a Healon bubble placed over the opening to prevent entry of foreign bodies, and no suction applied. The electrode array was inserted 17 mm to the first marker rib using the recommended ‘advance-off-stylet’ technique. Pure tone hearing threshold levels were recorded pre-, and postoperatively at 1–2 and 6–12 months. Speech recognition was tested for cochlear implant (CI) alone and combined with ipsilateral hearing aid for 7 subjects who retained significant residual hearing in the implanted ear at 1–2 months after operation. Results: There were 3/10 cases where 1–2 months after operation low-frequency responses were considered vibrotactile only (>85–110 dB HL, 250–500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420°. For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p < 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (≤60 dB HL). These conventional candidates for CI also benefited from improved speech recognition in noise when using combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000095615
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_karge</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220868930</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1161385671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2805-6d835dedf44f51dbde517eb3afba91113a624acbc35f78cbd81e6c913462ef0a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1LxDAQhuMX6q4ePAtSPAgeqpmkadOjFL9A8KAePJU0mWrXtlmTVvDfG3eXFZzLMMwzL-_MEHIE9AJA5Jc0RC5SEBtkwjlICgkT2SbZDxniPKN0ixzmmeSSCiEZsGR70aMxp5zukYn3syAhhEh2yR5kNOUU2D55LWxXNT2a6LpFPTirtB390OjoaWi6sVVDY_uo6aPC9l_Y_1aqjQrVm8aoAX1UWxd6-r1F5aL7bt6qflgMHZCdWrUeD1d5Sl5urp-Lu_jh8fa-uHqINQte49RILgyaOklqAaYyKCDDiqu6UjkAcJWyROlKc1FnUldGAqY6B56kDGuq-JScLXXnzn6O6Ieya7zGNhjBsEqZyjwXGWMBPP0Hzuzowjq-ZIzKwIVTTcn5EtLOeu-wLueu6ZT7LoGWv58o158I7MlKcKw6NH_k6roBOF4CH8q9oVsDy_EfM5-HxA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220868930</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals</source><creator>James, Chris J. ; Fraysse, Bernard ; Deguine, Olivier ; Lenarz, Thomas ; Mawman, Deborah ; Ramos, Ángel ; Ramsden, Richard ; Sterkers, Olivier</creator><creatorcontrib>James, Chris J. ; Fraysse, Bernard ; Deguine, Olivier ; Lenarz, Thomas ; Mawman, Deborah ; Ramos, Ángel ; Ramsden, Richard ; Sterkers, Olivier</creatorcontrib><description>Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. Soft surgical procedures were strictly observed: ≤1.5-mm cochleostomy hole placed anterior and inferior to the round window, a Healon bubble placed over the opening to prevent entry of foreign bodies, and no suction applied. The electrode array was inserted 17 mm to the first marker rib using the recommended ‘advance-off-stylet’ technique. Pure tone hearing threshold levels were recorded pre-, and postoperatively at 1–2 and 6–12 months. Speech recognition was tested for cochlear implant (CI) alone and combined with ipsilateral hearing aid for 7 subjects who retained significant residual hearing in the implanted ear at 1–2 months after operation. Results: There were 3/10 cases where 1–2 months after operation low-frequency responses were considered vibrotactile only (&gt;85–110 dB HL, 250–500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420°. For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p &lt; 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p &lt; 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (≤60 dB HL). These conventional candidates for CI also benefited from improved speech recognition in noise when using combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1420-3030</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9783805582124</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 3805582129</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9700</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 3318014257</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9783318014259</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000095615</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17063012</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - instrumentation ; Adult ; Audiometry, Pure-Tone ; Auditory Threshold ; Cochlear Implantation - methods ; Cochlear implants ; Ears &amp; hearing ; Electric Stimulation - instrumentation ; Electrodes ; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery ; Humans ; Prosthesis Design ; Recognition (Psychology) ; Speech ; Speech Perception ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Audiology &amp; neurotology, 2006, Vol.11 (Suppl 1), p.57-62</ispartof><rights>2006 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2805-6d835dedf44f51dbde517eb3afba91113a624acbc35f78cbd81e6c913462ef0a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2805-6d835dedf44f51dbde517eb3afba91113a624acbc35f78cbd81e6c913462ef0a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2427,4021,27921,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17063012$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>James, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraysse, Bernard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deguine, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenarz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawman, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, Ángel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsden, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterkers, Olivier</creatorcontrib><title>Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation</title><title>Audiology &amp; neurotology</title><addtitle>Audiol Neurotol</addtitle><description>Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. Soft surgical procedures were strictly observed: ≤1.5-mm cochleostomy hole placed anterior and inferior to the round window, a Healon bubble placed over the opening to prevent entry of foreign bodies, and no suction applied. The electrode array was inserted 17 mm to the first marker rib using the recommended ‘advance-off-stylet’ technique. Pure tone hearing threshold levels were recorded pre-, and postoperatively at 1–2 and 6–12 months. Speech recognition was tested for cochlear implant (CI) alone and combined with ipsilateral hearing aid for 7 subjects who retained significant residual hearing in the implanted ear at 1–2 months after operation. Results: There were 3/10 cases where 1–2 months after operation low-frequency responses were considered vibrotactile only (&gt;85–110 dB HL, 250–500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420°. For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p &lt; 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p &lt; 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (≤60 dB HL). These conventional candidates for CI also benefited from improved speech recognition in noise when using combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Audiometry, Pure-Tone</subject><subject>Auditory Threshold</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Cochlear implants</subject><subject>Ears &amp; hearing</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Electrodes</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Recognition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Speech</subject><subject>Speech Perception</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>1420-3030</issn><issn>1421-9700</issn><isbn>9783805582124</isbn><isbn>3805582129</isbn><isbn>3318014257</isbn><isbn>9783318014259</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1LxDAQhuMX6q4ePAtSPAgeqpmkadOjFL9A8KAePJU0mWrXtlmTVvDfG3eXFZzLMMwzL-_MEHIE9AJA5Jc0RC5SEBtkwjlICgkT2SbZDxniPKN0ixzmmeSSCiEZsGR70aMxp5zukYn3syAhhEh2yR5kNOUU2D55LWxXNT2a6LpFPTirtB390OjoaWi6sVVDY_uo6aPC9l_Y_1aqjQrVm8aoAX1UWxd6-r1F5aL7bt6qflgMHZCdWrUeD1d5Sl5urp-Lu_jh8fa-uHqINQte49RILgyaOklqAaYyKCDDiqu6UjkAcJWyROlKc1FnUldGAqY6B56kDGuq-JScLXXnzn6O6Ieya7zGNhjBsEqZyjwXGWMBPP0Hzuzowjq-ZIzKwIVTTcn5EtLOeu-wLueu6ZT7LoGWv58o158I7MlKcKw6NH_k6roBOF4CH8q9oVsDy_EfM5-HxA</recordid><startdate>2006</startdate><enddate>2006</enddate><creator>James, Chris J.</creator><creator>Fraysse, Bernard</creator><creator>Deguine, Olivier</creator><creator>Lenarz, Thomas</creator><creator>Mawman, Deborah</creator><creator>Ramos, Ángel</creator><creator>Ramsden, Richard</creator><creator>Sterkers, Olivier</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2006</creationdate><title>Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation</title><author>James, Chris J. ; Fraysse, Bernard ; Deguine, Olivier ; Lenarz, Thomas ; Mawman, Deborah ; Ramos, Ángel ; Ramsden, Richard ; Sterkers, Olivier</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2805-6d835dedf44f51dbde517eb3afba91113a624acbc35f78cbd81e6c913462ef0a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Audiometry, Pure-Tone</topic><topic>Auditory Threshold</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Cochlear implants</topic><topic>Ears &amp; hearing</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Electrodes</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Recognition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Speech</topic><topic>Speech Perception</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>James, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraysse, Bernard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deguine, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenarz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawman, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, Ángel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsden, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterkers, Olivier</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Audiology &amp; neurotology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>James, Chris J.</au><au>Fraysse, Bernard</au><au>Deguine, Olivier</au><au>Lenarz, Thomas</au><au>Mawman, Deborah</au><au>Ramos, Ángel</au><au>Ramsden, Richard</au><au>Sterkers, Olivier</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation</atitle><jtitle>Audiology &amp; neurotology</jtitle><addtitle>Audiol Neurotol</addtitle><date>2006</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>57</spage><epage>62</epage><pages>57-62</pages><issn>1420-3030</issn><eissn>1421-9700</eissn><isbn>9783805582124</isbn><isbn>3805582129</isbn><eisbn>3318014257</eisbn><eisbn>9783318014259</eisbn><abstract>Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. Soft surgical procedures were strictly observed: ≤1.5-mm cochleostomy hole placed anterior and inferior to the round window, a Healon bubble placed over the opening to prevent entry of foreign bodies, and no suction applied. The electrode array was inserted 17 mm to the first marker rib using the recommended ‘advance-off-stylet’ technique. Pure tone hearing threshold levels were recorded pre-, and postoperatively at 1–2 and 6–12 months. Speech recognition was tested for cochlear implant (CI) alone and combined with ipsilateral hearing aid for 7 subjects who retained significant residual hearing in the implanted ear at 1–2 months after operation. Results: There were 3/10 cases where 1–2 months after operation low-frequency responses were considered vibrotactile only (&gt;85–110 dB HL, 250–500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420°. For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p &lt; 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p &lt; 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (≤60 dB HL). These conventional candidates for CI also benefited from improved speech recognition in noise when using combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>17063012</pmid><doi>10.1159/000095615</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1420-3030
ispartof Audiology & neurotology, 2006, Vol.11 (Suppl 1), p.57-62
issn 1420-3030
1421-9700
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_220868930
source MEDLINE; Karger Journals
subjects Acoustic Stimulation - instrumentation
Adult
Audiometry, Pure-Tone
Auditory Threshold
Cochlear Implantation - methods
Cochlear implants
Ears & hearing
Electric Stimulation - instrumentation
Electrodes
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery
Humans
Prosthesis Design
Recognition (Psychology)
Speech
Speech Perception
Surgery
title Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T20%3A56%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_karge&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Combined%20Electroacoustic%20Stimulation%20in%20Conventional%20Candidates%20for%20Cochlear%20Implantation&rft.jtitle=Audiology%20&%20neurotology&rft.au=James,%20Chris%20J.&rft.date=2006&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=57&rft.epage=62&rft.pages=57-62&rft.issn=1420-3030&rft.eissn=1421-9700&rft.isbn=9783805582124&rft.isbn_list=3805582129&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000095615&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_karge%3E1161385671%3C/proquest_karge%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft.eisbn=3318014257&rft.eisbn_list=9783318014259&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220868930&rft_id=info:pmid/17063012&rfr_iscdi=true