Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age

The present investigation expanded on an earlier study by Miyamoto, Osberger, Todd, Robbins, Karasek, et al. (1994) who compared the speech perception skills of two groups of children with profound prelingual hearing loss. The first group had received the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant and was tested longitudinally. The second group, who were not implanted and used conventional hearing aids, was tested at a single point in time. In the present study, speech perception scores were examined over time for both groups of children as a function of communication mode of the child. Separate linear regressions of speech perception scores as a function of age were computed to estimate the rate of improvement in speech perception abilities that might be expected due to maturation for the hearing aid users (n=58) within each communication mode. The resulting regression lines were used to compare the estimated rate of speech perception growth for each hearing aid group to the observed gains in speech perception made by the children with multichannel cochlear implants. A large number of children using cochlear implants (n=74) were tested over a long period of implant use (m=3.5 years) that ranged from zero to 8.5 years. In general, speech perception scores for the children using cochlear implants were higher than those predicted for a group of children with 101-110 dB HL of hearing loss using hearing aids, and they approached the scores predicted for a group of children with 90-100 dB HL of hearing loss using hearing aids.     

Resource allocation and resident outcomes in nursing homes: comparisons between the best and worst

This article examines ethical dilemmas related to cochlear implant surgery in children. These dilemmas arise from the existence of a linguistic and cultural minority called the Deaf World. Organizations of culturally Deaf adults in the United States and abroad, as well as the World Federation of the Deaf, have, on ethical grounds, strongly criticized the practice of cochlear implant surgery in children. Three ethical dilemmas are examined. (1) The surgery is of unproven value for the main significant benefit sought, language acquisition, whereas the psychological, social, and linguistic risks have not been assessed. Thus the surgery appears to be innovative, but innovative surgery on children is ethically problematic. (2) It is now widely recognized that the signed languages of the world are full-fledged natural languages, and the communities that speak those languages have distinct social organizations and cultures. Deaf culture values lead to a different assessment of pediatric cochlear implant surgery than do mainstream (hearing) values, and both sets of values have standing. (3) The fields of otology and audiology want to provide cochlear implants to Deaf children but also, their leaders say, want to protect Deaf culture; those appear to be conflicting goals in principle because, if there were perfect implants, the ranks of the Deaf World would diminish.     

Cochlear implants: selection criteria and shifting borders

Cochlear implants have proven to be effective and reliable in postlingually deaf adults. This is also true for congenitally deaf and perilingually deaf children up to the age of six years. Due to the increasing experience, the improvement of implant technology and the proven reliability the selection criteria are broadened with shifting borders. The main extensions are related to age, additional handicaps, residual hearing and special etiologies of deafness. Increasing evidence shows that very early implantation results in better performance and better hearing and speech development. Near-normal language acquisition can be achieved in children implanted under the age of four. Additional handicaps do not automatically exclude a candidate from cochlear implantation. A case-to-case decision has to be made based on additional diagnostics and the experience of the implant centre. A list of suitable handicaps is provided. Severely hearing impaired patients may also be considered for cochlear implantation if their residual hearing provides no benefit for speech discrimination. The same holds true for children. Cochlear implantation in obliterated cochleae and inner ear malformation requires a special surgical technique and special electrode arrays. In this way even difficult cases can be managed with remarkable outcome. Over all, the selection criteria have been broadened with increasing experience and technological improvement. This development may continue and the borderline between hearing aids and cochlear implants will shift further towards severe hearing loss. However, the basis for success still remains good rehabilitation, a team approach and the willingness of the patient to undergo the whole process of cochlear implantation.     

Cochlear implants in children

Cochlear implants are no longer considered new or experimental technology. Difficulty in evaluating the degree of hearing loss and response to traditional forms of amplification in young children makes pediatric cochlear implant candidacy a complex issue. Cochlear implantation and, in particular, pediatric cochlear implantation, requires a team commitment with contributions from surgeons, audiologists, speech pathologists, psychologists, and special educators. Elements discussed include assessment and candidacy issues, surgical technique, elements of a cochlear implant team, outcome assessment, and potential complications. The decision to perform pediatric cochlear implantation should not be undertaken without serious consideration to the enormous commitment required in both financial and personnel terms.     

Cochlear implantation. Practical information for the generalist

The diagnosis and investigation of a patient with bilateral, severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss is presented. The steps toward cochlear implantation, including tests of audition, balance, radiographic imaging, and the pre- and postrehabilitation period, are reviewed. The two major cochlear implants available today, and future developments within the cochlear implant, are presented.     

Audition and visual attention: the developmental trajectory in deaf and hearing populations

This study examined the development of visual attention in 5- to 13-year-olds who differed in their access to sound. Hearing children, deaf children with cochlear implants, and deaf children without implants participated in a task in which they were to respond to some visual signals and not others. The results of Experiment I indicated that the timing of developmental changes in visual selective attention was similar for all 3 groups, occurring around 8 years. The magnitude of age-related change differed among groups; hearing children and older deaf children using a cochlear implant reached higher levels of performance with age than did deaf children without enhanced access to sound. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the developmental differences between deaf children with and without cochlear implants begin prior to 8 years and may be related to their use of environmental sounds to organize visual attention.     

Sibling relationships for deaf children: The impact of child and family characteristics.

Objective: To examine factors that affect relationships between deaf children who use cochlear implants or hearing aids and their hearing siblings. Study Design: Qualitative analysis of interview data from parents of deaf children. Participants: Parents of 29 deaf children with at least 1 sibling; 20 children used cochlear implants and 9 used hearing aids. Main Outcome Measure: Quality of deaf-hearing sibling relationships as assessed by an ordinal scale developed by the authors. Results: Birth order, family size, parents' anxiety about deafness, and negative comparisons by parents of hearing and deaf siblings were key factors in sibling relationships. Conclusions: Family context is important in understanding experiences of deaf children and their hearing siblings. The model replaces assumptions of hearing loss as individual disability with an emphasis on the social determinants of managing differences in siblings' hearing status. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cochlear implantation: a review of the literature and the Nijmegen results

The field of cochlear implantation is developing rapidly. In subjects with bilateral profound deafness who gain no benefit from conventional hearing aids the aim of cochlear implantation is to provide a means for them to receive auditory sensations. Throughout the world, most cochlear implant centres are still continuing their research efforts to improve the results with this technique. Although it is still difficult to predict how an individual will perform with a cochlear implant, the success of cochlear implantation can no longer be denied. In this paper, we review some recent papers and reports, and the results of the various Nijmegen cochlear implant studies. Data about subject selection, examinations, surgery and the outcome are discussed. Our results were in good agreement with those of other authors. It can be concluded once again that cochlear implantation is an effective treatment for postlingually deaf adults and children, and for prelingually (congenital or acquired) deaf children with profound bilateral sensorineural deafness.     

Active electronic cochlear implants for middle and inner ear hearing loss--a new era in ear surgery. I: Basic principles and recommendations on nomenclature

Hearing aids have fundamental disadvantages: (1) stigmatization of the patient; (2) the sound is often found to be unsatisfactory due to the limited frequency range and undesired distortion; (3) in many patients, the ear canal fitting device generally necessary leads to an occlusion effect; (4) acoustic feedback when amplification is high. Conventional hearing aids transmit sound into the ear canal via a small microphone. Sound has the disadvantage of requiring high output sound pressure levels for its transmission. This along with the necessary miniaturization of the loudspeaker as well as the resonances and reflections in the closed ear canal contribute to the disadvantages mentioned. In contrast, implantable hearing aids do not make sound signals but micromechanical vibrations. An implantable hearing aid has an electromechanical transducer instead of the loudspeaker of a conventional hearing aid. The hearing signal does not leave the transducer as sound but as a mechanical vibration which is directly coupled to the auditory system bypassing the air. This implantable hearing aid is either coupled to the tympanic membrane, the ossicular chain, the perilymph of the inner ear, or the skull. An implantable hearing aid is expected to have: 1 Better sound fidelity than a hearing aid 2 No ear canal fitting device, free ear canal 3 No feedback 4 Invisibility Requirements on electronic hearing implants designed for patients with conductive hearing loss differ from those on implants for sensorineural hearing loss. Conductive hearing loss requires the implant to replace the impedance transformation, thus being an impedance transformation implant (ITI). In various respects, the demands on an ITI are lower than the demands on an electronic hearing aid for patients with sensorineural hearing loss. The latter are mostly patients with a failure of the cochlea amplifier (CA). A damage to the CA is clinically discernible by a positive recruitment and loss of otoacoustic emissions (OAE). Since these patients form the majority of cases with sensorineural hearing loss, an active hearing implant for such patients should partially replace the function of the CA. Therefore, the suggestion is to refer to a CAI (cochlea amplifier implant). The implant expressions ITI (for patients with conductive hearing loss) and CAI (for patients with sensorineural hearing loss) used in this context allow nomenclatural association with the CI (cochlear implant) for complete inner ear failure as well as with the BSI (brainstem implant) in the case of hearing nerve failure.     

The assembly of Ni2+-actin: some peculiarities

Cochlear implants have been very successful in restoring partial hearing to profoundly deaf people. Many individuals with implants are now able to communicate and understand speech without lip-reading, and some are able to talk over the phone. Children with implants can develop spoken-language skills and attend normal schools (i.e., schools with normal-hearing children). The greatest benefits with cochlear implantation have occurred in patients who (1) acquired speech and language before their hearing loss, and (2) have shorter duration of deafness. Gradual, but steady, improvements in speech production and speech perception have also occurred in prelingually deafened adults or children.     

Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the postoperative performance of 12 children who demonstrated some open-set speech recognition skills before receiving a Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant with a view toward expanding the selection criteria for cochlear implant candidacy to include children who derive minimal benefit from amplification. DESIGN: Pre- and postoperative performance of two groups of children were compared. Group 1 consisted of 12 children who demonstrated some open-set speech recognition skills before receiving a Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant (Borderline group). Group 2 consisted of 12 children who demonstrated no open-set speech recognition skills before implantation with a Nucleus device (Traditional group). In all children, candidacy was determined based on preimplant binaural aided performance. For most subjects, the poorer ear was selected for implantation. Mean pre- and postoperative speech recognition scores of the Borderline subjects were compared to determine the benefit provided by their cochlear implants. Secondly, matched-pair analyses were used to compare the mean speech recognition scores obtained by the Borderline and Traditional subjects. RESULTS: The scores of the Borderline group improved significantly on five of six speech recognition measures when 6 mo postoperative scores obtained with the implant were compared with preoperative test scores obtained with hearing aids. By the 12 mo postoperative interval, the scores of the Borderline group had improved significantly (p < 0.05) on all six measures. In contrast, scores obtained by the Traditional group had improved significantly on three of six measures at both the 6 and 12 mo postoperative intervals. Comparison of postoperative test scores revealed that the Borderline group scored significantly higher than the Traditional group on three of six measures at the 6 mo test interval and on six of six measures at the 12 mo test interval (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that both groups derive significant benefit from their cochlear implants. Although the mean preoperative audiograms for the implanted ears did not differ significantly for the two groups of subjects, members of the Borderline group exhibited significantly better speech recognition skills than the Traditional group during the first year after implantation. These findings suggest that the increased auditory experience of the Borderline subjects positively influenced their performance with a cochlear implant. The authors advocate that the selection criteria used to determine pediatric cochlear implant candidacy be broadened to include consideration of children who demonstrate minimal open-set speech recognition skills.     

A modification of play audiometry to assess speech discrimination ability in severe-profoundly deaf 2- to 4-year-old children

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop an assessment procedure that was independent of language and speech production ability, to test speech feature discrimination in severe-profoundly deaf children 2 to 4 yr of age. DESIGN: The procedure being trialed was adapted from existing procedures. The child was required to respond with a game-like motor response to a "change" in a speech stimulus that was being presented repeatedly through a speaker. The change occurred at randomly determined times, and false alarm responses were measured during the waiting periods (while the child waited for the change). Two- to four-yr-old normally hearing children and hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and a group of 4-yr-old hearing-impaired children using cochlear implants were assessed on the task. RESULTS: More than 82% of the 3- and 4-yr-old normally hearing and hearing-impaired children were able to complete the testing for the eight speech sound contrasts within three 20 minute sessions. Fifty percent of the 2-yr-old normally hearing and hearing-impaired children were able to condition and complete the task. All of the normally hearing children who completed the task successfully discriminated all speech sound contrasts. The performance of the hearing-impaired children using hearing aids was influenced by the degree of hearing loss and the type of speech contrast being tested. Similarly, the average performance of the children using cochlear implants was better for easier contrasts such as /ba/bi/ with contrasting vowel formant cues. CONCLUSIONS: This procedure has potential for use as a reliable clinical and research tool for assessing the development of auditory discrimination ability in 2- to 4-yr-old severe-profoundly deaf children.     

Implant cochléaire et développement des échanges conversationnels.

Most researches conducted in the field of postimplant assessment have focused on the restoration of perceptual capabilities and the development of verbal language. In contrast, only very few studies have examined the impact of a cochlear implantation on children's overall development and, in particular, on their conversational language abilities. However, some previous works on the preverbal development revealed the recurrent difficulties experienced by deaf children in acquiring knowledge of social rules and social skills relative to speech activities. In children with profound bilateral deafness, a conventional hearing aid is not enough to provide sufficiently relevant information for a satisfactory development of oral communication. In such situations, the most suitable way of improving hearing is the use of a cochlear implant. The authors therefore hypothesized that access to oral perception will not only improve implanted children's social skills, but will also increase their rate of participation and the use of verbal language in their interaction with a familiar adult (mother or father). Their communication skills profile would resemble that of younger normal hearing children. Using conversational samples from a video-filming protocol at specific intervals, the authors monitored the development of communication skills in a group of 20 prelingually, profoundly deaf children (mean age: 3.7 years). Results corroborated our hypothesis. They indicated that children using cochlear implants increased their overall performance in communication skills, quantitatively and qualitatively speaking, even at the first year postimplantation stage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss

Adults with severe or severe-to-profound hearing losses constitute between 11% and 13.5% of the hearing-impaired population. A detailed investigation of the speech recognition of adults with severe (n = 20) or severe-to-profound (n = 14) hearing loss was conducted at The University of Melbourne. Each participant took part in a series of speech recognition tasks while wearing his or her currently fitted hearing aid(s). The assessments included closed-set tests of consonant recognition and vowel recognition, combined with open-set tests of monosyllabic word recognition and sentence recognition. Sentences were presented in quiet and in noise at +10 dB SNR to replicate an environment more typical of everyday listening conditions. Although the results demonstrated wide variability in performance, some general trends were observed. As expected vowels were generally well perceived compared with consonants. Monosyllabic word recognition scores for both the adults with a severe hearing impairment (M = 67.2%) and the adults with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment (M = 38.6%) could be predicted from the segmental tests, with an allowance for lexical effects. Scores for sentences presented in quiet showed additional linguistic effects and a significant decrease in performance with the addition of background noise (from 82.9% to 74.1% for adults with a severe hearing loss and from 55.8% to 34.2% for adults with a severe-to-profound hearing loss). Comparisons were made between the participants and a group of adults using a multiple-channel cochlear implant. This comparison indicated that some adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from the use of a cochlear implant. The results of this study support the contention that cochlear implant candidacy should not rely solely on audiometric thresholds.     

Prostate cancer and prostate bed SPECT imaging with ProstaScint: semiquantitative correlation with prostatic biopsy results

The last (may 1995) NHI Consensus Development Conference on cochlear implant recommends to extend the use of cochlear implant for adult patient suffering from bilateral acquired severe hearing impairment. Its indications are a severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally presenting an open-set sentence recognition scores less than or equal to 30 percent under best aided conditions. We report the results of our 4 first implantees responding to these criteria, and discuss the mechanisms of the speech intelligibility improvement which has been obtained.     

Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique

It is commonly accepted that the intracochlear placement of the cochlear implant electrode is potentially damaging to the hearing rests which may exist. Consequently, cochlear implants have been recommended for totally deaf ears only. The question has been raised whether or not it is possible to preserve residual hearing during intracochlear implantation through extremely careful surgical techniques. Experience has shown, that the cochleotomy of the scala tympani anterior to the round window niche, careful preservation of the fibrine endost layer and the use of Healon are amongst the surgical procedures described which may assist in retaining the rest function of the inner ear. These observations which are discussed in detail suggest that the experienced surgeon can effect preservation of residual hearing for patients who cannot derive significant benefits from conventional acoustic amplifiers.     

Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation

We describe a novel signal processing strategy for cochlear implants designed to emphasize stochastic independence across the excited neural population. The strategy is based on the observation that high rate pulse trains may produce random spike patterns in auditory nerve fibers that are statistically similar to those produced by spontaneous activity in the normal cochlea. We call this activity 'pseudospontaneous'. A supercomputer-based computational model of a population of auditory nerve fibers suggests that different average rates of pseudospontaneous activity can be created by varying the stimulus current of a fixed-amplitude, high-rate pulse train, e.g. 5000 pps. Electrically-evoked compound action potentials recorded in a human cochlear implant subject are consistent with the hypothesis that such a stimulus can desynchronize the fiber population. This desynchronization may enhance neural representation of temporal detail and dynamic range with a cochlear implant and eliminate a major difference between acoustic and electric hearing.     

Significant reduction in circuit pressure with modified plasma separation chamber for a heparin removal device

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the maximum dose of radiation the CLARION 1.2 cochlear implant can withstand safely. INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implants restore functional hearing to patients with sensorineural deafness. Because some patients may need radiation therapy, it is important to investigate the influence of ionizing radiation on cochlear implant function. METHODS: This study tested the function of four CLARION 1.2 implants (Advanced Bionics, Sylmar, CA, U.S.A.) after varying radiation treatments with gamma rays. The first implant received a cumulative dosage of 69 Gy over nine treatments (single doses between 0.1-30 Gy). The second was irradiated with a total of 90 Gy, receiving three treatments of 30 Gy each. The third and fourth received doses more typical of patient therapy (i.e., 2 Gy) approximately 30 times, for a cumulative dosage of approximately 60 Gy. Implant function was tested after every treatment; the CLARION implant incorporates a back-telemetry system, allowing impedance and current output testing. RESULTS: Despite the type of treatment, the results were quite consistent: difficulties in function occurred when the cumulative dosage inside the implant was approximately 60 Gy. The first implant recovered completely and the second recovered partially. DISCUSSION: The CLARION 1.2 cochlear implant seems to safely withstand approximately 60 Gy of radiation before experiencing functional difficulties. In a clinical situation, the implant would not likely be in the target volume irradiated, and thus the patient's therapeutic cumulative dosage might be higher.     

Deafness in childhood: 3. Cochlear implants: who, why and what are the results?

Some profound or totally deaf children cannot benefit from a hearing aid. In some cases a cochlear implant may be successful. The system compromises a small cable implanted into the inner ear, and externally-worn devices to collect and transmit the sounds to the ear. The cable consists of electrodes that respond to different frequencies of speech, imitating the action of the inner ear. It is not possible to predict the outcome in individual cases. At best, the child may subsequently be able to speak fluently and hear without lip-reading. At least, the child should be able to hear some background noise such as traffic, and be able to improve his or her lip-reading skills. It may take up to a year before improvements begin to show. The implant is intended to be permanent. Cochlear implants are still at a relatively early stage of development. Progress is cautious but the results so far are very encouraging. The entry gate is widening and the number of children being accepted for treatment is increasing.