Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(07): 433-444
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730413
Research Article

Factors Associated with Speech-Recognition Performance in School-Aged Children with Cochlear Implants and Early Auditory-Verbal Intervention

Jace Wolfe
1   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Mickael Deroche
2   Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
,
Sara Neumann
1   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Lindsay Hanna
1   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Will Towler
1   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Caleb Wilson
3   University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Alexander G. Bien
4   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Sharon Miller
5   Department of Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Erin C. Schafer
5   Department of Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Vincent Gracco
6   Haskins Laboratories, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
7   School of Communication Sciences & Disorders McGill University, Montreal, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Considerable variability exists in the speech recognition abilities achieved by children with cochlear implants (CIs) due to varying demographic and performance variables including language abilities.

Purpose This article examines the factors associated with speech recognition performance of school-aged children with CIs who were grouped by language ability.

Research Design This is a single-center cross-sectional study with repeated measures for subjects across two language groups.

Study Sample Participants included two groups of school-aged children, ages 7 to 17 years, who received unilateral or bilateral CIs by 4 years of age. The High Language group (N = 26) had age-appropriate spoken-language abilities, and the Low Language group (N = 24) had delays in their spoken-language abilities.

Data Collection and Analysis Group comparisons were conducted to examine the impact of demographic characteristics on word recognition in quiet and sentence recognition in quiet and noise.

Results Speech recognition in quiet and noise was significantly poorer in the Low Language compared with the High Language group. Greater hours of implant use and better adherence to auditory-verbal (AV) therapy appointments were associated with higher speech recognition in quiet and noise.

Conclusion To ensure maximal speech recognition in children with low-language outcomes, professionals should develop strategies to ensure that families support full-time CI use and have the means to consistently attend AV appointments.

Keywords

cochlear implant - children - speech perception - data logging

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 08 February 2021

Accepted: 22 March 2021

Article published online:
30 November 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Ching TYC, Dillon H, Leigh G, Cupples L. Learning from the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study: summary of 5-year findings and implications. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (sup2): S105-S111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dettman SJ, Dowell RC, Choo D. et al. Long-term communication outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants younger than 12 months: a multicenter study. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e82-e95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Eisenberg LS, Fisher LM, Johnson KC, Ganguly DH, Grace T, Niparko JK. CDaCI Investigative Team. Sentence recognition in quiet and noise by pediatric cochlear implant users: relationships to spoken language. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e75-e81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Geers AE, Mitchell CM, Warner-Czyz A, Wang NY, Eisenberg LS. CDaCI Investigative Team. Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics 2017; 140 (01) e20163489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davidson LS, Geers AE, Blamey PJ, Tobey EA, Brenner CA. Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (1, Suppl): 19S-26S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Park LR, Gagnon EB, Thompson E, Brown KD. Age at full-time use predicts language outcomes better than age of surgery in children who use cochlear implants. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (04) 986-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gagnon EB, Eskridge H, Brown KD. Pediatric cochlear implant wear time and early language development. Cochlear Implants Int 2020; 21 (02) 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Easwar V, Sanfilippo J, Papsin B, Gordon K. Impact of consistency in daily device use on speech perception abilities in children with cochlear implants: datalogging evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (09) 835-846
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wiig EH, Semel E, Secord WA. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fifth Edition (CELF-5). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Geers AE, Moog JS, Rudge AM. Effect of frequency of early intervention on spoken language and literacy levels of children who are deaf or hard of hearing in preschool and elementary school. J Early Hear Detect Interv 2019; 4 (01) 15-27
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Uhler K, Warner-Czyz A, Gifford R, Working Group P. Pediatric minimum speech test battery. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (03) 232-247
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Holder JT, Sheffield SW, Gifford RH. Speech understanding in children with normal hearing: sound field normative data for BabyBio, the BKB-SIN, and QuickSIN. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e50-e55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the pediatric AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) 418-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wolfe J, Neumann S, Schafer E, Marsh M, Wood M, Baker RS. Potential benefits of an integrated electric-acoustic (EAS) sound processor with children: a preliminary report. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (02) 127-140
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Busch T, Vermeulen A, Langereis M, Vanpoucke F, van Wieringen A. Cochlear implant data logs predict children's receptive vocabulary. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (04) 733-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sharma SD, Cushing SL, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: a review of the literature. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 133: 109984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chadha NK, Papsin BC, Jiwani S, Gordon KA. Speech detection in noise and spatial unmasking in children with simultaneous versus sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (07) 1057-1064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gordon KA, Papsin BC. Benefits of short interimplant delays in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30 (03) 319-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Davidson LS, Geers AE, Uchanski RM. et al. Effects of early acoustic hearing on speech perception and language for pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2019; 62 (09) 3620-3637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Caldwell A, Nittrouer S.. Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research 2013; 56: 13-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Geers A, Brenner C, Davidson L. Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing 2003; 24: 24S-35S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tajudeen BA, Waltzman SB, Jethanamest D, Svirsky MA. Speech perception in congenitally deaf children receiving cochlear implants in the first year of life. Otology & Neurotology 2010; 31: 1254-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dettman S, Wall E, Constantinescu G, Dowell R. Communication outcomes for groups of children using cochlear implants enrolled in auditory-verbal therapy, aural-oral, and bilingual-bicultural early intervention programs. Otology and Neurotology 2013; 34: 451-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar