Literature DB >> 30199497

What to Do When Cochlear Implant Users Plateau in Performance: a Pilot Study of Clinician-guided Aural Rehabilitation.

Aaron C Moberly1, Kara Vasil1, Jodi Baxter2, Christin Ray2.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: For experienced adult cochlear implant (CI) users who have reached a plateau in performance, a clinician-guided aural rehabilitation (CGAR) approach can improve speech recognition and hearing-related quality of life (QOL).
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of CI users do not reach optimal performance in terms of speech recognition ability and/or personal communication goals. Although self-guided computerized auditory training programs have grown in popularity, compliance and efficacy for these programs are poor. We propose that CGAR can improve speech recognition and hearing-related QOL in experienced CI users.
METHODS: Twelve adult CI users were enrolled in an 8-week CGAR program guided by a speech-language pathologist and audiologist. Nine patients completed the program along with pre-AR and immediate post-AR testing of speech recognition (AzBio sentences in quiet and in multitalker babble, Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet), QOL (Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults/Elderly, and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale), and neurocognitive functioning (working memory capacity, information-processing speed, inhibitory control, speed of lexical/phonological access, and nonverbal reasoning). Pilot data for these nine patients are presented.
RESULTS: From pre-CGAR to post-CGAR, group mean improvements in word recognition were found. Improvements were also demonstrated on some composite and subscale measures of QOL. Patients who demonstrated improvements in word recognition were those who performed most poorly at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: CGAR represents a potentially efficacious approach to improving speech recognition and QOL for experienced CI users. Limitations and considerations in implementing and studying aural rehabilitation approaches are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30199497      PMCID: PMC6132264          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001964

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  22 in total

1.  Long-term performance of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults.

Authors:  Minoo Lenarz; Hasibe Sönmez; Gert Joseph; Andreas Büchner; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program.

Authors:  Robert W Sweetow; Jennifer Henderson Sabes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Quantification of sleepiness: a new approach.

Authors:  E Hoddes; V Zarcone; H Smythe; R Phillips; W C Dement
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1973-07       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  Verbal Learning and Memory After Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults: Some New Findings with the CVLT-II.

Authors:  David B Pisoni; Arthur Broadstock; Taylor Wucinich; Natalie Safdar; Kelly Miller; Luis R Hernandez; Kara Vasil; Lauren Boyce; Alexandra Davies; Michael S Harris; Irina Castellanos; Huiping Xu; William G Kronenberger; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?

Authors:  Natalie R Capretta; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  [Long term results after cochlear implantation in elderly patients].

Authors:  M Herzog; F Schön; J Müller; C Knaus; L Scholtz; J Helms
Journal:  Laryngorhinootologie       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.057

7.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Age and measurement time-of-day effects on speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  Carrie E Veneman; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Lois J Matthews; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 9.  Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Helen Henshaw; Melanie A Ferguson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Postoperative Rehabilitation Strategies Used by Adults With Cochlear Implants: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; Natalie R Capretta; Shirley C Henning; Laura Feeney; Mark A Pitt; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-06-06
View more
  3 in total

1.  Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly: a uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors.

Authors:  Niccolò Favaretto; Gino Marioni; Davide Brotto; Flavia Sorrentino; Flavia Gheller; Alessandro Castiglione; Silvia Montino; Luciano Giacomelli; Patrizia Trevisi; Alessandro Martini; Roberto Bovo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Comprehensive auditory rehabilitation in adults receiving cochlear implants: A pilot study.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara Vasil; Jodi Baxter; Brett Klamer; David Kline; Christin Ray
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-09-01

Review 3.  A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-06
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.