SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ENT Updates / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Benefits on language development and auditory perception performance of using a contralateral hearing aid in cochlear implanted children

Mustafa ÇOLAK
İsmet BAYRAMOĞLU
Hakan TUTAR
Şenay ALTINYAY
Pages
191–198
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The use of a contralateral hearing aid in cochlear implanted children with prelingual sensorineural hearing loss positively contributes to language devel-opment and auditory perception performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the benefits of a contralateral hearing aid on expressive and receptive language development and auditory perception performance over a 36-month post-surgical period in children implanted on a single side with a cochlear device for bilateral pre-lingual profound sensorineural hearing loss.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The cases were divided into two groups: cochlear implant users (50 patients, “CI group”) and cochlear implant plus hearing aid users (25 patients, “CI+HA group”).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The use of a contralateral hearing aid in cochlear implanted children with prelingual sensorineural hearing loss positively contributes to language devel-opment and auditory perception performance.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To evaluate the benefits of a contralateral hearing aid on expressive and receptive language development and auditory perception performance over a 36-month post-surgical period in children implanted on a single side with a cochlear device for bilateral pre-lingual profound sensorineural hearing loss. Methods: Seventy-five patients with idiopathic profound sensorineural hearing loss were included. The cases were divided into two groups: cochlear implant users (50 patients, “CI group”) and cochlear implant plus hearing aid users (25 patients, “CI+HA group”). Language development and auditory performance were compared in the two groups during the first 3 years following cochlear implant surgery. The Pre-school Language Scale-4 was used to assess language development and the LittlEars® Auditory Survey, Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale and Meaningful Use of Speech Scale were employed to assess auditory perception performance. Results: Language development in the CI+HA group was superior to that in the CI group at 6 months post-surgery, in terms of receptive and expressive language development; auditory perception performance was also superior in the CI+HA group, compared to the CI group. Conclusion: The use of a contralateral hearing aid in cochlear implanted children with prelingual sensorineural hearing loss positively contributes to language devel-opment and auditory perception performance.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇOLAK, M., BAYRAMOĞLU, İ., TUTAR, H., ALTINYAY, Ş. (2019). Benefits on language development and auditory perception performance of using a contralateral hearing aid in cochlear implanted children. ENT Updates, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 191–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/152182

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Paludetti G, Conti G, DI Nardo W, et al. Infant hearing loss: from diagnosis to therapy Official Report of XXI Conference of Italian Society of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2012;32:34770
  2. Fortnum HM, Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Davis AC, Bamford JM. Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing impairment in the United Kingdom and implications for universal neonatal hearing screening: questionnaire based ascertainment study. BMJ 2001;323:536-40
  3. Paradise JL, Dollaghan CA, Campbell TF, et al. Language, Speech Sound Production, and Cognition in Three-Year-Old Children in Relation to Otitis Media in Their First Three Years of Life. Pediatrics 2000;105:111930
  4. Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Osberger MJ, Ertmer D. Speech intelligibility of implanted children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:399-401
  5. Nelson PB, Jin SH. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:2286-94
  6. Stickney GS, Zeng FG, Litovsky R, Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:1081-91
  7. Stickney GS, Nie K, Zeng FG. Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:2412-20
  8. Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, et al. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:596-606
  9. Warren SE, Dunbar MN. Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management. Semin Hear 2018;39:405-13
  10. Ching TY, Psarros C, Hill M, Dillon H, Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear? Ear Hear 2001;22:365-80
  11. Yalçınkaya F, Bayoglu B, Saraçbaşl O, Belgin E. Turkish adaptation of speech and language disorders test: Preschool Language Scale, fourth edition: PLS-4. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2007;11:87
  12. Tsiakpini V, Weichbold H, Kuehn-Inacker F, Coninx E, D’Haese P, Almadin S. LittlEARS Auditory Questionnaire. Innsbruck: MED-EL Corp.; 2004
  13. Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW. Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Am J Otol 1991;12:14450
  14. Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Activity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2003;24:485-500