Monosyllable speech perception of Japanese hearing aid users with prelingual hearing loss: implications for surgical indication of cochlear implant

OBJECTIVE: The monosyllable speech perception ability after years of educational intervention was compared between prelingually deafened pediatric hearing aid users and their cochlear implant counterparts. DESIGN: An open-set monosyllabic speech perception test was conducted on all subjects. The test required subjects to indicate a corresponding Japanese character to that spoken by the examiner. Fifty-two subjects with prelingual hearing impairment (47 hearing aid users and 5 cochlear implant users) were examined. RESULTS: Hearing aid users with average pure-tone thresholds less than 90 dB HL demonstrated generally better monosyllable perception than 70%, which was equivalent or better performance than that of the cochlear implant group. Widely dispersed speech perception was observed within the 90-99 dB HL hearing-aid user group with most subjects demonstrating less than 50% speech perception. In the cluster of >100 dB HL, few cases demonstrated more than 50% in speech perception. The perception ability of the vowel part of each mora within the cochlear implant group was 100% and corresponding to that of hearing aid users with moderate and severe hearing loss. CONCLUSION: Hearing ability among cochlear implant users can be comparable with that of hearing aid users with average unaided pure-tone thresholds of 90 dB HL, after monosyllabic speech perception testing was performed.     

Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: The present investigation was designed to provide information to facilitate the decision of whether a child should continue using digital signal processing (DSP) hearing aids with wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) or be recommended for a cochlear implant, based on the unaided pure-tone average (PTA at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz). DESIGN: Fifty-two children (ages 5 to 15 yr) with unaided PTAs in the moderately severe to profound range, wearing (DSP) hearing aids with (WDRC) or a Nucleus 24, Clarion 1.2, or CII cochlear implant system, participated: 26 with unaided PTAs from 60 to 98 dB HL using DSP hearing aids and 26 with pre-implant unaided PTAs from 93 to 120 dB HL, using cochlear implants. An open-set speech perception test, the Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT; ), was administered at intensity levels representative of raised (70 dB SPL) and soft (50 dB SPL) speech at two different times approximately 1 mo apart. Minimum audibility of soft sounds was determined for the children with implants and with DSP hearing aids using warble-tone thresholds at octave intervals between 250 and 4000 Hz. RESULT: Regression analyses and significance testing were used to determine the unaided PTA values at which the performance of the DSP Hearing Aid group (DSP HA group) and Cochlear Implant group on the LNT test were statistically different at the 0.05 significance level. For the 70 dB SPL presentation level, the statistically different PTAs were 113 and 97 dB HL at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively, and 96 and 88 dB HL at 50 dB SPL for Time 1 and Time 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Unaided PTA at which children in the cochlear implant group would be expected to score significantly better than the children in the DSP HA group was lowest (96 and 88 dB HL) for the lower signal level (50 dB SPL). Assuming that LNT scores at 50 dB SPL are representative of long-term hearing of soft incidental speech that is essential for language learning and fluent communication, the children with PTA values greater than the range from 88 to 96 dB HL would be expected to have significantly better LNT scores with a cochlear implant. These results should be further examined with research efforts focusing on early intervention with optimally fitted DSP hearing aids and cochlear implants.     

Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing.

Eighty-seven primary-school children with impaired hearing were evaluated using speech perception, production, and language measures over a 3-year period. Forty-seven children with a mean unaided pure-tone-average hearing loss of 106 dB HL used a 22-electrode cochlear implant, and 40 with a mean unaided pure-tone-average hearing loss of 78 dB HL were fitted with hearing aids. All children were enrolled in oral/aural habilitation programs, and most attended integrated classes with normally hearing children for part of the time at school. Multiple linear regression was used to describe the relationships among the speech perception, production, and language measures, and the trends over time. Little difference in the level of performance and trends was found for the two groups of children, so the perceptual effect of the implant is equivalent, on average, to an improvement of about 28 dB in hearing thresholds. Scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals showed an upward trend at about 60% of the rate for normally hearing children. Rates of improvement for individual children were not correlated significantly with degree of hearing loss. The children showed a wide scatter about the average speech production score of 40% of words correctly produced in spontaneous conversations, with no significant upward trend with age. Scores on the open-set Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word test and the Bench-Kowal-Bamford (BKB) sentence test were strongly related to language level (as measured by an equivalent age on the PPVT) and speech production scores for both auditory-visual and auditory test conditions. After allowing for differences in language, speech perception scores in the auditory test condition showed a slight downward trend over time, which is consistent with the known biological effects of hearing loss on the auditory periphery and brainstem. Speech perception scores in the auditory condition also decreased significantly by about 5% for every 10 dB of hearing loss in the hearing aid group. The regression analysis model allows separation of the effects of language, speech production, and hearing levels on speech perception scores so that the effects of habilitation and training in these areas can be observed and/or predicted. The model suggests that most of the children in the study will reach a level of over 90% sentence recognition in the auditory-visual condition when their language becomes equivalent to that of a normally hearing 7-year-old, but they will enter secondary school at age 12 with an average language delay of about 4 or 5 years unless they receive concentrated and effective language training.     

Assessment of basal sound identification skills and communication abilities in profoundly deaf children fitted with hearing aids or a cochlear implant

Basal auditory functions and early verbal communication skills were examined in young, profoundly deaf children with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. The hearing aid users (n = 23) were subdivided on the basis of their (unaided) hearing thresholds into: group A (pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz: 90–100 dB HL); group B (PTA: 100–110 dB HL); and group C (PTA > 110 dB HL). All the children with a cochlear implant (n = 20) had a profound sensorineural hearing loss with a PTA that exceeded 120 dB HL. Functional hearing was evaluated by means of basal sound identification. The child’s communication abilities with hearing aids or a cochlear implant were assessed using structured observations on the Scales of Early Communication Skills for Hearing Impaired Children. The basal auditory functions on a sound identification level improved over time in the cochlear implant users and groups A and B. Hardly any improvement was seen in group C. The performance of all the groups (either hearing aid or cochlear implant) on the Scales of Early Communication Skills for Hearing Impaired Children at 6 months after fitting the device and at later evaluations, was close to the average level for their age.     

Should a hearing aid in the contralateral ear be recommended for children with a unilateral cochlear implant?

OBJECTIVES: To predict bimodal benefit before cochlear implantation, we compared the performances of participants with bimodal fitting and with a cochlear implant alone on speech perception tests. METHODS: Twenty-two children with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other (bimodal fitting) were included. Several aided and unaided average hearing thresholds and the aided word recognition score of the hearing aid ear were related to the bimodal benefit on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. Results with bimodal fitting were compared to results with the cochlear implant alone on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No relationship was found between any of the hearing thresholds or the aided phoneme recognition score of the hearing aid ear and the bimodal benefit on the phoneme recognition tests. At the group level, the bimodal scores on the phoneme recognition tests in quiet and in noise were significantly better than the scores with the cochlear implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively available audiometric parameters are not reliable predictors of bimodal benefit in candidates for cochlear implantation. Children with unilateral implants benefit from bimodal fitting on speech tests. This improvement in performance warrants the recommendation of bimodal fitting even when bimodal benefit cannot be predicted.     

Audiological application criteria for implantable hearing aid devices: a clinical experience at the Nijmegen ORL clinic

Objectives/Hypothesis: To define audiological application criteria for different implantable hearing aid devices. Study Design: Retrospective study. Methods: Comparisons were made between aided speech recognition scores obtained at conversational level (65 dB) in patients with the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) (n = 22), the Otologics middle ear transducer (MET) (n = 10), conventional hearing aids (behind-the-ears) (n = 47), and cochlear implants (CIs) (n = 123). Results: In relation to hearing loss, only for mild hearing loss, speech recognition scores with VSB were comparable to that with conventional hearing aids. In the Otologics MET users, speech recognition scores were comparable with those of the conventional hearing aid users until a mean hearing loss of about 75 dB HL. At a sensorineural hearing loss of about 65 dB HL or more, the Otologics MET users have better speech recognition scores than the VSB users. For comparison with CI users, we followed a more conservative approach. In 90% of the users of a CI, speech recognition scores were better than those in: 1) patients with a conventional hearing aid and a mean hearing loss of about 95 dB HL or worse; 2) patients with an Otologics MET and a mean hearing loss of 85 dB HL or worse. Conclusions: Patients fitted with a VSB or an Otologics MET middle ear implant do not demonstrate better speech recognition scores than patients fitted with today's conventional hearing aids. Results might even been worse. However, the VSB and Otologics MET are a good option in patients with moderate (VSB) to severe (Otologics MET) sensorineural hearing loss and external otitis.     

Speech perception and language criteria for paediatric cochlear implant candidature

Existing criteria for cochlear implantation of children with impaired hearing aim to select children who will eventually achieve better speech perception scores with an implant than with a hearing aid. It is difficult to predict the eventual outcomes with hearing aid and implant because speech perception scores typically increase with age, and because the distribution of scores for implant and hearing aid users overlap considerably at all ages. This paper shows how speech perception scores can be combined with spoken language measures to arrive at an objective criterion for implant selection. The method also allows estimation of the likely increase in speech perception score within a few months of implantation and estimation of the probability that the child will perform better with the implant than the hearing aid. The criteria were based on data from 135 evaluations of 50 children using cochlear implants with monosyllabic words, open-set sentences, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Data from 114 evaluations of 43 children using hearing aids were used to illustrate the sensitivity of the criteria.     

Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS

OBJECTIVES: This study compared speech recognition performance on the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) and the Connected Speech Test (CST) for three hearing aid circuits (peak clipping [PC], compression limiting [CL], and wide dynamic range compression [WDRC]) in adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The study also questioned whether or not hearing aid benefit for the three circuits was dependent upon the speech level and the signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) and upon the degree and slope of hearing loss. DESIGN: Unaided speech recognition performance for NU-6 and CST materials presented from a loudspeaker at 0 degrees was measured during Visit 1, and both unaided and aided performance was measured at 3-mo intervals during Visits 2 to 4. The NU-6 was presented in quiet at a conversational speech level of 62 dB SPL. The CST was presented in 10 listening conditions-three S/B (-3, 0, and 3 dB) at each of three speech levels (soft speech at 52 dB SPL, conversational speech at 62 dB SPL, and loud speech at 74 dB SPL) and in quiet at 74 dB SPL. Uncorrelated multi-talker babble was presented from two loudspeakers at 45 degrees on each side of the main speaker. Hearing aid benefit was examined for 360 subjects divided into four groups of hearing loss, pure tone average <40 dB HL and slope <10 dB/octave or >10 dB/octave and hearing loss >40 dB HL for the two slope categories. RESULTS: Hearing aid benefit (aided minus unaided performance) measured on the NU-6 in quiet exceeded 31 rau for all three circuits. Although small statistical advantages were found for the WDRC, the differences were approximately 2% and are not considered clinically relevant. Unaided CST performance showed a complex relationship between presentation level and signal-to-babble ratio that was further confounded by the degree of hearing loss. For the two mild hearing loss groups and for each of the three nominal signal-to-babble ratios, CST performance decreased by 20 rau for the -3 dB S/B to 6 rau for the 3 dB S/B as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. In contrast, unaided performance increased by 32 to 13 rau with signal level for all signal-to-babble ratios for the two >40 dB hearing loss groups. Overall, aided CST performance exceeded unaided performance for all 10 conditions. As expected, hearing aid benefit was greatest (27 rau) for soft speech and smallest for loud speech (6 rau). Differences among the hearing aid circuits were small with only one significant difference; the WDRC at 62/0 was poorer by 3 rau than the other two circuits. When the CST data were analyzed as a function of hearing loss, five pair-wise comparisons were significant. In contrast to the unaided performance, aided performance for all hearing loss groups decreased as presentation level increased, even though the signal-to-babble ratio was constant. CONCLUSIONS: All three hearing aids circuits provided benefit over the unaided condition in both quiet and noise. The greatest benefit was measured for soft speech in the more severe hearing loss groups. Although only small differences were measured among the three hearing aid circuits, significant differences favored the PC and CL circuits over the WDRC in the mild hearing loss groups and favored the WDRC over the PC in the more severe, sloping hearing loss group. An interesting interaction between speech level, signal-to-babble ratio, degree of hearing loss, and amplification was found. For a constant signal-to-babble ratio, recognition performance decreased as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. The effect was most marked in the milder hearing loss groups and in the aided conditions, and occurred at even the lowest speech levels.     

Cochlear implant in patients with residual hearing

Objective: The postoperative speech perception abilities of severely hearing-impaired patients with multi-channel cochlear implant were compared with preoperative speech perception performance with conventional hearing aids. Methods: Cochlear implantation was performed in six severely to profoundly hearing-impaired patients. They had unaided pure-tone thresholds of 70–100-dB HL and aided thresholds of 35–90-dB HL in the better ear, but were not able to perceive speech sounds well with hearing aids. Results: Postoperatively, all the patients had significantly improved speech perception performance, exceeded the average skills of profoundly deaf cochlear implant users, and were able to communicate without writing. Conclusion: These results imply that cochlear implant may be indicated for severely to profoundly deaf subjects, if they receive little or no benefit from conventional hearing aids.     

先天性语前聋中国儿童双耳人工耳蜗植入疗效观察

目的：评估双侧耳人工耳蜗植入对极重度感音神经性语前聋患儿的听觉与言语康复疗效。方法：2例先天性极重度感音神经性聋儿童，单侧耳人工耳蜗植入术后2年和3年分别施行对侧耳人工耳蜗植入。术后1年评估患儿左、右耳单耳及双耳人工耳蜗助听听阈和言语识别率。以及言语清晰度。结果：①双耳人工耳蜗助听与单耳人工耳蜗助听相比。平均听阈降低分别为13dB和11dB；②在安静环境中双耳人工耳蜗植入儿童的言语识别率(开放项列)分别平均提高为9％和10％，2例双耳人工耳蜗植入儿童的言语识别率(开放项列)分别达97％和95％；③在嘈杂环境中对言语的识别能力明显提高；④言语清晰度有明显改善。结论：双耳人工耳蜗植入可明显提高极重度感音神经性语前聋患儿在安静和噪声环境下的言语识别率，对语前聋儿童的言语和语言发育有明显的帮助。     

Exploring the language and literacy outcomes of pediatric cochlear implant users

OBJECTIVE: The principal goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between language and literacy (i.e., reading and writing) skills in pediatric cochlear implant users. A peripheral objective was to identify the children's skills that were in need of remediation and subsequently to provide suggestions for remedial programming. It was predicted that the robust language skills often associated with children who have cochlear implant experience would facilitate the development of literacy skills. It was further proposed that the language and literacy skills of pediatric cochlear implant users would approximate the language and literacy skills of children with normal hearing. DESIGN: Sixteen pediatric cochlear implant users' language and literacy skills were evaluated and then compared with a reference group of 16 age-matched, normal-hearing children. All 32 participants were educated in mainstream classes within the public school system in the Midwest. The "Sentence Formulation" and "Concepts and Directions" subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-3 test were used to evaluate receptive and expressive language skills. Reading comprehension was evaluated with the "Paragraph Comprehension" subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Performance measures for the writing analyses included productivity, complexity and grammaticality measures. RESULTS: Children with cochlear implants performed within 1 SD of the normal-hearing, age-matched children on measures of language comprehension, reading comprehension and writing accuracy. However, the children with cochlear implants performed significantly poorer than the children with normal hearing on the expressive "Sentence Formulation" subtest. The cochlear implant users also produced fewer words on the written narrative task than did the normal-hearing children, although there was not a significant difference between groups with respect to total words per clause. Furthermore there was a strong correlation between language performance and reading performance, as well as language performance and total words produced on the written performance measure for the children using cochlear implants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the language skills of pediatric cochlear implant users are related to and correlated with the development of literacy skills within these children. Consequently, the performance of the cochlear implant users, on various language and literacy measures, compared favorably to an age-matched group of children with normal hearing. There were significant differences in the ability of the cochlear implant users to correctly utilize grammatical structures such as conjunctions and correct verb forms when they were required to formulate written and oral sentences. Given this information, it would be appropriate for their educational or remedial language programs to emphasize the use and development of these structures.     

Natural history of contralateral residual hearing in unilateral cochlear implant users - long-term findings

Abstract Conclusion: The long-term stability of low-frequency residual hearing found in a significant number of bilateral-bimodal users (cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) on the other ear; CI/HA) with severe-to-profound or profound hearing loss in the non-implanted ear justifies bilateral-bimodal fitting efforts in this group. Since low-frequency residual hearing tends to deteriorate in some of these CI/HA users, periodic evaluation, which includes pure-tone thresholds and speech perception tests, is mandatory for determining the point in time at which CI/HA hearing is no longer effective, and the patient should accordingly be considered as a candidate for contralateral cochlear implantation. Objective: To determine, in bilateral-bimodal (CI/HA) users with severe-to-profound or profound hearing loss in the non-implanted ear, the rate of residual hearing deterioration in the non-implanted ear after cochlear implantation. Methods: Pure-tone aided and unaided thresholds in the non-implanted ears of 39 CI/HA users at 0.25-4.0 kHz were recorded prospectively up to 6 years after implantation. Results: Group mean threshold values in the non-implanted ears remained stable over 3, 4, 5 and 6 years post-implantation, except for significant deterioration at 4.0 kHz of both unaided (4.2, 5.2, 9.0 and 8.2 dB, respectively) and aided thresholds (8.1, 4.6, 6.1 and 8.3 dB, respectively).     

Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: Audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation

Abstract

Objective: Establish up-to-date evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children. Design: Speech perception results for early-implanted children were compared to children using traditional amplification. Equivalent pure-tone average (PTA) hearing loss for cochlear implant (CI) users was established. Language of early-implanted children was assessed over six years and compared to hearing peers. Study sample: Seventy-eight children using CIs and 62 children using traditional amplification with hearing losses ranging 25–120?dB HL PTA (speech perception study). Thirty-two children who received a CI before 2.5 years of age (language study). Results: Speech perception outcomes suggested that children with a PTA greater than 60?dB HL have a 75% chance of benefit over traditional amplification. More conservative criteria applied to the data suggested that children with PTA greater than 82?dB HL have a 95% chance of benefit. Children implanted under 2.5 years with no significant cognitive deficits made normal language progress but retained a delay approximately equal to their age at implantation. Conclusions: Hearing-impaired children under three years of age may benefit from cochlear implantation if their PTA exceeds 60?dB HL bilaterally. Implantation as young as possible should minimize any language delay resulting from an initial period of auditory deprivation.     

索菲康骨导助听器助听效果的多中心研究

目的 评估软带或头带佩戴新型经皮传导索菲康骨导助听器对传导性聋或混合性聋、单侧聋患者的助听效果.方法 以来自国内4家三级甲等医院的109例传导性或混合性聋患者及11例单侧聋(single-sided deafness,SSD)患者为研究对象,均以纯音测听(≥6岁患者)或听性脑干反应(ABR)(<6岁患者)评估裸耳听阈后予以头带或软带佩戴索菲康Alpha 2 MPO骨导助听器;并在声场下进行未助听、佩戴当日及佩戴2周后的助听听阈(0.5~4 kHz)测试;≥6岁患者进行未助听、佩戴当日及佩戴2周助听下的言语识别阈(speech recognition threshold, SRT)测试,并记录患者佩戴后的不良反应.结果 传导性或混合性聋患者中≥6岁患者助听耳裸耳骨导及气导平均听阈均值分别为18.55±8.99、71.45±10.25 dB HL,<6岁组助听耳裸耳骨导及气导ABR阈值均值分别为18.33±8.36、70.80±8.24 dB HL;SSD患者助听耳裸耳听阈不能测出;佩戴2周后,三组助听后纯音听阈均值分别为32.21±10.00、37.33±14.15、34.38±10.76 dB HL,较未助听时明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);≥6岁传导性或混合性聋组和SSD组患者佩戴2周后助听下各方向SRT较未助听时均显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);各组患者均无与佩戴助听器相关的不良皮肤反应等.结论 使用软带、头带佩戴索菲康骨导助听器,可有效改善传导性或混合性聋、SSD患者听阈和安静环境下言语识别阈.     

Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.

This study aimed to (a) investigate the effect of using a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears on speech perception in quiet and in noise, (b) identify the speech information obtained from a hearing aid that is additive to the information obtained from a cochlear implant, and (c) explore the relationship between aided thresholds in the nonimplanted ear and speech perception benefit from wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears.Fourteen adults who used the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system in 1 ear participated in the study. All participants had either used a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear for at least 75% of waking hours after cochlear implantation, and/or, hearing loss less than 90 dB HL in the low frequencies in the nonimplanted ear. Speech perception was evaluated in 3 conditions: cochlear implant alone (CI), hearing aid alone (HA), and cochlear implant in conjunction with hearing aid in opposite ears (CIHA). Three speech perception tests were used: consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet, City University of New York style (CUNY) sentences in coincident signal and noise, and spondees in coincidental and spatially separated signal and noise. Information transmission analyses were performed on the CNC responses.Of the 14 participants tested, 6 showed significant bimodal benefit on open-set speech perception measures and 5 showed benefit on close-set spondees. However, 2 participants showed poorer speech perception with CIHA than CI in at least 1 of the speech perception tests. Results of information transmission analyses showed that bimodal benefit (performance with CIHA minus that with CI) in quiet arises from improved perception of the low frequency components in speech. Results showed that participants with poorer aided thresholds in the mid-to-high frequencies demonstrated greater bimodal benefit. It is possible that the mid-to-high frequency information provided by the hearing aids may be conflicting with the cochlear implants.     

Reliability and validity of judgments of sound quality in elderly hearing aid wearers

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate a particular sound-quality rating procedure, referred to here as the Judgments of Sound Quality (JSQ) test, for potential use as an outcome measure with elderly hearing aid wearers. The validity and reliability of the JSQ as an outcome measure were determined for unaided and aided listening conditions. DESIGN: A repeated-measures design was employed with two primary independent variables, each with two values: 1) aided condition (aided versus unaided listening); and 2) trial (test versus retest). Sixteen elderly, hearing-impaired hearing aid users participated in the study. The participants provided ratings on eight dimensions of sound quality (softness, brightness, clarity, fullness, nearness, loudness, spaciousness, and total impression) under four stimulus conditions (speech at 65 dB SPL with a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio, speech at 65 dB SPL in quiet, music at 90 dB SPL, and music at 75 dB SPL). Test and retest ratings were obtained in both unaided and aided conditions. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between median test and retest scores on the JSQ. The median ratings for each sound-quality dimension were found to have moderate test-retest reliability, with test-retest correlations (r) ranging from 0.20 to 0.73 (median r value = 0.58) for the unaided listening condition, and from 0.23 to 0.85 (median r value = 0.51) for the aided listening condition. Test validity was established through significant differences in JSQ ratings for various stimulus pairs (e.g., speech in quiet versus speech in noise). In addition, significant differences were observed between unaided and aided ratings for the dimensions of clarity, nearness, loudness, and total impression with aided JSQ ratings approaching normative "ideal" values established previously. CONCLUSIONS: The JSQ appears to be a potentially useful measure of hearing aid outcome, especially when using group data to document the benefits of amplification. Additional efforts should be directed at improving the reliability of the JSQ, however, before application to hearing aid wearers on an individual basis.     

Speech and language development in a population of Swedish hearing-impaired pre-school children, a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE: There is little information on speech and language development in pre-school children with mild, moderate or severe hearing impairment. The primary aim of the study is to establish a reference material for clinical use covering various aspects of speech and language functions and to relate test values to pure tone audiograms and parents' judgement of their children's hearing and language abilities. METHODS: Nine speech and language tests were applied or modified, both classical tests and newly developed tests. Ninety-seven children with normal hearing and 156 with hearing impairment were tested. Hearing was 80 dB HL PTA or better in the best ear. Swedish was their strongest language. None had any additional diagnosed major handicaps. The children were 4-6 years of age. The material was divided into 10 categories of hearing impairment, 5 conductive and 5 sensorineural: unilateral; bilateral 0-20; 21-40; 41-60; 61-80 dB HL PTA. The tests, selected on the basis of a three component language model, are phoneme discrimination; rhyme matching; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III, word perception); Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG, grammar perception); prosodic phrase focus; rhyme construction; Word Finding Vocabulary Test (word production); Action Picture Test (grammar production); oral motor test. RESULTS: Only categories with sensorineural loss showed significant differences from normal. Word production showed the most marked delay for 21-40 dB HL: 5 and 6 years p<0.01; for 41-60 dB: 4 years p<0.01 and 6 years p<0.01 and 61-80 dB: 5 years p<0.05. Phoneme discrimination 21-40 dB HL: 6 years p<0.05; 41-60 dB: 4 years p<0.01; 61-80 dB: 4 years p<0.001, 5 years p<0.001. Rhyme matching: no significant difference as compared to normal data. Word perception: sensorineural 41-60 dB HL: 6 years p<0.05; 61-80 dB: 4 years p<0.05; 5 years p<0.01. Grammar perception: sensorineural 41-60 dB HL: 6 years p<0.05; 61-80 dB: 5 years p<0.05. Prosodic phrase focus: 41-60 dB HL: 5 years p<0.01. Rhyme construction: 41-60 dB HL: 4 years p<0.05. Grammar production: 61-80 dB HL: 5 years p<0.01. Oral motor function: no differences. The Word production test showed a 1.5-2 years delay for sensorineural impairment 41-80 dB HL through 4-6 years of age. There were no differences between hearing-impaired boys and girls. Extended data for the screening test [E. Borg, A. Risberg, B. McAllister, B.M. Undemar, G. Edquist, A.C. Reinholdsson, et al., Language development in hearing-impaired children. Establishment of a reference material for a "Language test for hearing-impaired children", Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 65 (2002) 15-26] are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Reference values for expected speech and language development are presented that cover nearly 60% of the studied population. The effect of the peripheral hearing impairment is compensated for in many children with hearing impairment up to 60 dB HL. Above that degree of impairment, language delay is more pronounced, probably due to a loss of acuity. The importance of central cognitive functions, speech reading and signing for compensation of peripheral limitations is pointed out.     

Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss.

PURPOSE: The authors examined the benefits of younger cochlear implantation, longer cochlear implant use, and greater pre-implant aided hearing to spoken language at 3.5 and 4.5 years of age. METHOD: Language samples were obtained at ages 3.5 and 4.5 years from 76 children who received an implant by their 3rd birthday. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify characteristics associated with spoken language outcomes at the 2 test ages. The Preschool Language Scale (I. L. Zimmerman, V. G. Steiner, & R. E. Pond, 1992) was used to compare the participants' skills with those of hearing age-mates at age 4.5 years. RESULTS: Expected language scores increased with younger age at implant and lower pre-implant thresholds, even when compared at the same duration of implant use. Expected Preschool Language Scale scores of the children who received the implant at the youngest ages reached those of hearing age-mates by 4.5 years, but those children implanted after 24 months of age did not catch up with hearing peers. CONCLUSION: Children who received a cochlear implant before a substantial delay in spoken language developed (i.e., between 12 and 16 months) were more likely to achieve age-appropriate spoken language. These results favor cochlear implantation before 24 months of age, especially for children with aided pure-tone average thresholds greater than 65 dB prior to surgery.     

Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation

The fitting of a cochlear implant together with aided residual hearing was evaluated by means of matching frequency and/or perceived pitch between acoustic and electric modalities. Five cochlear implant users with the Nucleus^® Freedom? electrode array with residual acoustic hearing participated. Psychophysical procedures were used to create a map in which the implant was programmed to provide the listener with high-frequency information only above the frequency at which acoustic hearing was no longer considered useful. This was compared to a second map which provided the full frequency range. Listeners wore each map for a number of weeks before speech recognition was measured in quiet and noise. Post-operatively across subjects, average hearing thresholds worsened by 27 dB. However, cochlear implantation provided superior recognition of speech compared to pre-operative scores, with the best results found when subjects were wearing their hearing aids together with the implant. No significant differences were found between the two maps on speech tests when subjects were wearing their implant together with hearing aid/s. In conclusion, the combination of a cochlear implant together with hearing aid/s was effective at providing speech perception benefits for the listeners of the current study, regardless of the frequency-to-electrode allocation selected.