OBJECTIVES: To evaluate change in individual children's performance in general areas of everyday listening following sequential bilateral implantation, and to identify the specific types of listening scenarios in which performance change occurred. The first hypothesis was that parent performance ratings for their child would be higher in the bilateral versus unilateral implant condition for each section of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale for parents, viz.: speech perception, spatial hearing, and qualities of hearing. The second hypothesis was that the rating for the participant group would be higher in the bilateral condition for speech perception items involving group conversation or background noise, spatial hearing items, and qualities of hearing items focused on sound segregation or listening effort. DESIGN: Children receiving sequential bilateral implants at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital and fulfilling selection criteria (primarily no significant cognitive or developmental delays, and oral English language skills of child and parent sufficient for completing assessments) were invited to participate in a wider project evaluating outcomes. The assessment protocol for older children included the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale for parents. All children (n = 20; ages 4 to 15 years) whose parents completed the scale preoperatively and at 24-months postoperatively were included in this study. Ratings obtained preoperatively in the unilateral implant condition (or unilateral implant plus hearing aid for 4 participants) were compared with those obtained postoperatively in the bilateral implant condition. RESULTS: Bilateral ratings were significantly higher than unilateral ratings on the speech section for 12 children (W ≥ 7.0; p ≤ 0.03), on the spatial section for 13 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.03), and on the qualities of hearing section for 9 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.047). The difference between conditions was unrelated to time between implants or age at bilateral implantation (r ≤ 0.4; p ≥ 0.082). The median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all eight speech perception items, including, as predicted, those involving group conversation and/or background noise (W ≥ 37.5; p ≤ 0.043). Also, as predicted, the median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all six spatial hearing items (W ≥ 88.0; p ≤ 0.014), and for qualities of hearing items related to sound segregation (W ≥ 94.0; p ≤ 0.029), but not for those related to listening effort (W ≤ 92.0; p ≥ 0.112). CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-five percentage of parents perceived change in their child's daily listening performance postoperatively, and 25% perceived change across all three listening areas. For the overall participant group, the parents perceived a change in performance in the majority of specific listening scenarios, although change was limited in the qualities of hearing section, including no change in listening effort. Previous research suggests postoperative change was likely due to the headshadow effect and improved spatial hearing. Additional contributions may have been made by binaural summation, redundancy, and unmasking. For these participants, differences between device conditions may have been limited by their relatively old age at implantation, delay between implants, and limited bilateral experience. These results will provide valuable information to families during preoperative counseling and postoperative discussions about expected progress and evident benefit.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate change in individual children's performance in general areas of everyday listening following sequential bilateral implantation, and to identify the specific types of listening scenarios in which performance change occurred. The first hypothesis was that parent performance ratings for their child would be higher in the bilateral versus unilateral implant condition for each section of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale for parents, viz.: speech perception, spatial hearing, and qualities of hearing. The second hypothesis was that the rating for the participant group would be higher in the bilateral condition for speech perception items involving group conversation or background noise, spatial hearing items, and qualities of hearing items focused on sound segregation or listening effort. DESIGN:Children receiving sequential bilateral implants at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital and fulfilling selection criteria (primarily no significant cognitive or developmental delays, and oral English language skills of child and parent sufficient for completing assessments) were invited to participate in a wider project evaluating outcomes. The assessment protocol for older children included the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale for parents. All children (n = 20; ages 4 to 15 years) whose parents completed the scale preoperatively and at 24-months postoperatively were included in this study. Ratings obtained preoperatively in the unilateral implant condition (or unilateral implant plus hearing aid for 4 participants) were compared with those obtained postoperatively in the bilateral implant condition. RESULTS: Bilateral ratings were significantly higher than unilateral ratings on the speech section for 12 children (W ≥ 7.0; p ≤ 0.03), on the spatial section for 13 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.03), and on the qualities of hearing section for 9 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.047). The difference between conditions was unrelated to time between implants or age at bilateral implantation (r ≤ 0.4; p ≥ 0.082). The median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all eight speech perception items, including, as predicted, those involving group conversation and/or background noise (W ≥ 37.5; p ≤ 0.043). Also, as predicted, the median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all six spatial hearing items (W ≥ 88.0; p ≤ 0.014), and for qualities of hearing items related to sound segregation (W ≥ 94.0; p ≤ 0.029), but not for those related to listening effort (W ≤ 92.0; p ≥ 0.112). CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-five percentage of parents perceived change in their child's daily listening performance postoperatively, and 25% perceived change across all three listening areas. For the overall participant group, the parents perceived a change in performance in the majority of specific listening scenarios, although change was limited in the qualities of hearing section, including no change in listening effort. Previous research suggests postoperative change was likely due to the headshadow effect and improved spatial hearing. Additional contributions may have been made by binaural summation, redundancy, and unmasking. For these participants, differences between device conditions may have been limited by their relatively old age at implantation, delay between implants, and limited bilateral experience. These results will provide valuable information to families during preoperative counseling and postoperative discussions about expected progress and evident benefit.