This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (15)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cochlear Implantation  • Laryngology/ Speech/ Language Pathology  • Pediatric Otolaryngology  • Pediatrics  • Pediatrics, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Comparison With Cochlear Implant Users

Laurie S. Eisenberg, PhD; Karen Iler Kirk, PhD; Amy Schaefer Martinez, MA; Elizabeth A. Ying, MA; Richard T. Miyamoto, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:563-569.

Objective  To compare the communication outcomes between children with aided residual hearing and children with cochlear implants.

Design  Measures of speech recognition and language were administered to pediatric hearing aid users and cochlear implant users followed up longitudinally as part of an ongoing investigation on cochlear implant outcomes. The speech recognition measures included the Lexical Neighborhood Test, Phonetically Balanced–Kindergarten Word Lists, and the Hearing in Noise Test for Children presented in quiet and noise (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Language measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Third Edition (PPVT-III), the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Revised.

Subjects  The experimental group was composed of 39 pediatric hearing aid users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 78.2 dB HL (hearing level). The comparison group was composed of 117 pediatric cochlear implant users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 110.2 dB HL. On average, both groups lost their hearing at younger than 1 year and were fitted with their respective sensory aids at 2 to 2.6 years of age. Not every child was administered every test for a variety of reasons.

Results  Between-group performance was equivalent on most speech recognition and language measures. The primary difference found between groups was on the PPVT-III, in which the hearing aid group had a significantly higher receptive vocabulary language quotient than the cochlear implant group. Notably, the cochlear implant group was substantially younger than the hearing aid group and had less experience with their sensory devices on this measure.

Conclusion  Data obtained from children with aided residual hearing can be useful in determining cochlear implant candidacy.

From the House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, Calif (Dr Eisenberg and Ms Martinez); and the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (Drs Kirk and Miyamoto and Ms Ying). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Hearing-Impaired Children Under Sedation Before Cochlear Implantation
Patel et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:677-683.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT