Literature DB >> 24231628

Longitudinal speech perception and language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users: the effect of age at implantation.

Camille C Dunn1, Elizabeth A Walker, Jacob Oleson, Maura Kenworthy, Tanya Van Voorst, J Bruce Tomblin, Haihong Ji, Karen I Kirk, Bob McMurray, Marlan Hanson, Bruce J Gantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have examined the long-term effect of age at implantation on outcomes using multiple data points in children with cochlear implants. The goal of this study was to determine whether age at implantation has a significant, lasting impact on speech perception, language, and reading performance for children with prelingual hearing loss.
DESIGN: A linear mixed-model framework was used to determine the effect of age at implantation on speech perception, language, and reading abilities in 83 children with prelingual hearing loss who received cochlear implants by the age of 4 years. The children were divided into two groups based on their age at implantation: (1) under 2 years of age and (2) between 2 and 3.9 years of age. Differences in model-specified mean scores between groups were compared at annual intervals from 5 to 13 years of age for speech perception, and 7 to 11 years of age for language and reading.
RESULTS: After controlling for communication mode, device configuration, and preoperative pure-tone average, there was no significant effect of age at implantation for receptive language by 8 years of age, expressive language by 10 years of age, reading by 7 years of age. In terms of speech-perception outcomes, significance varied between 7 and 13 years of age, with no significant difference in speech-perception scores between groups at ages 7, 11, and 13 years. Children who used oral communication (OC) demonstrated significantly higher speech-perception scores than children who used total communication (TC). OC users tended to have higher expressive language scores than TC users, although this did not reach significance. There was no significant difference between OC and TC users for receptive language or reading scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Speech perception, language, and reading performance continue to improve over time for children implanted before 4 years of age. The present results indicate that the effect of age at implantation diminishes with time, particularly for higher-order skills such as language and reading. Some children who receive cochlear implants after the age of 2 years have the capacity to approximate the language and reading skills of their earlier-implanted peers, suggesting that additional factors may moderate the influence of age at implantation on outcomes over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24231628      PMCID: PMC3944377          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a4a8f0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  59 in total

1.  Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Peter J Blamey; Emily A Tobey; Christine A Brenner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.

Authors:  L I Lin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories.

Authors:  S E Lively; J S Logan; D B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Heather Hayes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Pediatric cochlear implants in prelingual deafness: medium and long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel M Kaplan; Moshe Puterman
Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 0.892

7.  The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation?

Authors:  Carol McDonald Connor; Holly K Craig; Stephen W Raudenbush; Krista Heavner; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning.

Authors:  Gwyneth C Rost; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2009-03

9.  Children with a cochlear implant: characteristics and determinants of speech recognition, speech-recognition growth rate, and speech production.

Authors:  Ona Bø Wie; Eva-Signe Falkenberg; Ole Tvete; Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Growing up with a cochlear implant: education, vocation, and affiliation.

Authors:  Linda J Spencer; J Bruce Tomblin; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2012-09-04
View more
  34 in total

1.  Grammatical Abilities in Young Cochlear Implant Recipients and Children With Normal Hearing Matched by Vocabulary Size.

Authors:  Jongmin Jung; David J Ertmer
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  A Prospective Longitudinal Study of U.S. Children Unable to Achieve Open-Set Speech Recognition 5 Years After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Jennifer M Barnard; Laurel M Fisher; Karen C Johnson; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nae-Yuh Wang; Alexandra L Quittner; Christine M Carson; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  How Mixed-Effects Modeling Can Advance Our Understanding of Learning and Memory and Improve Clinical and Educational Practice.

Authors:  Katherine R Gordon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 4.  The Evolution of Statistical Methods in Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences.

Authors:  Jacob J Oleson; Grant D Brown; Ryan McCreery
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-09-14

6.  Segmental and Suprasegmental Perception in Children Using Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Kaitlyn A Wenrich; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 7.  Developmental and cross-modal plasticity in deafness: evidence from the P1 and N1 event related potentials in cochlear implanted children.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Julia Campbell; Garrett Cardon
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 2.997

8.  Temporal Responsiveness in Mother-Child Dialogue: A Longitudinal Analysis of Children with Normal Hearing and Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Nicholas A Smith; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Infancy       Date:  2018-01-17

9.  Assessing Fine-Grained Speech Discrimination in Young Children With Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Zhao Ellen Peng; Christi Hess; Jenny R Saffran; Jan R Edwards; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Sensitivity of expressive linguistic domains to surgery age and audibility of speech in preschoolers with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Johanna G Nicholas; Ann E Geers
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2017-10-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.