Cochlear implants for adults and children

2002 ◽  
pp. 417-449
Author(s):  
Graeme Clark
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Adults And Children

scholarly journals Self-Monitoring of Listening Abilities in Normal-Hearing Children, Normal-Hearing Adults, and Children with Cochlear Implants

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann M. Rothpletz ◽  
Frederic L. Wightman ◽  
Doris J. Kistler
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Objective Condition ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Subjective Condition ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Listening Ability ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Listening Task ◽  
Hearing Children

Background: Self-monitoring has been shown to be an essential skill for various aspects of our lives, including our health, education, and interpersonal relationships. Likewise, the ability to monitor one's speech reception in noisy environments may be a fundamental skill for communication, particularly for those who are often confronted with challenging listening environments, such as students and children with hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this project was to determine if normal-hearing children, normal-hearing adults, and children with cochlear implants can monitor their listening ability in noise and recognize when they are not able to perceive spoken messages. Research Design: Participants were administered an Objective-Subjective listening task in which their subjective judgments of their ability to understand sentences from the Coordinate Response Measure corpus presented in speech spectrum noise were compared to their objective performance on the same task. Study Sample: Participants included 41 normal-hearing children, 35 normal-hearing adults, and 10 children with cochlear implants. Data Collection and Analysis: On the Objective-Subjective listening task, the level of the masker noise remained constant at 63 dB SPL, while the level of the target sentences varied over a 12 dB range in a block of trials. Psychometric functions, relating proportion correct (Objective condition) and proportion perceived as intelligible (Subjective condition) to target/masker ratio (T/M), were estimated for each participant. Thresholds were defined as the T/M required to produce 51% correct (Objective condition) and 51% perceived as intelligible (Subjective condition). Discrepancy scores between listeners’ threshold estimates in the Objective and Subjective conditions served as an index of self-monitoring ability. In addition, the normal-hearing children were administered tests of cognitive skills and academic achievement, and results from these measures were compared to findings on the Objective-Subjective listening task. Results: Nearly half of the children with normal hearing significantly overestimated their listening in noise ability on the Objective-Subjective listening task, compared to less than 9% of the adults. There was a significant correlation between age and results on the Objective-Subjective task, indicating that the younger children in the sample (age 7–12 yr) tended to overestimate their listening ability more than the adolescents and adults. Among the children with cochlear implants, eight of the 10 participants significantly overestimated their listening ability (as compared to 13 of the 24 normal-hearing children in the same age range). We did not find a significant relationship between results on the Objective-Subjective listening task and performance on the given measures of academic achievement or intelligence. Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that many children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants often fail to recognize when they encounter conditions in which their listening ability is compromised. These results may have practical implications for classroom learning, particularly for children with hearing loss in mainstream settings.

Segregation of competing speech in adults and children with normal hearing and in children with cochlear implants

2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (1) ◽  
pp. 339-352
Author(s):  
Ji-Sheng Liu ◽  
Yang-Wenyi Liu ◽  
Ya-Feng Yu ◽  
John J. Galvin ◽  
Qian-Jie Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Competing Speech

Cochlear Implants in Adults and Children

JAMA ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 274 (24) ◽  
pp. 1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Gates
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Adults And Children

scholarly journals Separating the effects of acoustic and phonetic factors in linguistic processing with impoverished signals by adults and children

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN NITTROUER ◽  
JOANNA H. LOWENSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Phonemic Awareness ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Linguistic Processing ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Acoustic Structure ◽  
Adults And Children

ABSTRACTCochlear implants allow many individuals with profound hearing loss to understand spoken language, even though the impoverished signals provided by these devices poorly preserve acoustic attributes long believed to support recovery of phonetic structure. Consequently, questions may be raised regarding whether traditional psycholinguistic theories rely too heavily on phonetic segments to explain linguistic processing while ignoring potential roles of other forms of acoustic structure. This study tested that possibility. Adults and children (8 years old) performed two tasks: one involving explicit segmentation, phonemic awareness, and one involving a linguistic task thought to operate more efficiently with well-defined phonetic segments, short-term memory. Stimuli were unprocessed (UP) signals, amplitude envelopes (AE) analogous to implant signals, and unprocessed signals in noise (NOI) that provided a degraded signal for comparison. Adults’ results for short-term recall were similar for UP and NOI, but worse for AE stimuli. The phonemic awareness task revealed the opposite pattern across AE and NOI. Children's results for short-term recall showed similar decrements in performance for AE and NOI compared to UP, even though only NOI stimuli showed diminished results for segmentation. Conclusions were that perhaps traditional accounts are too focused on phonetic segments, something implant designers and clinicians need to consider.

scholarly journals Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Adults and Children

2004 ◽  
Vol 130 (5) ◽  
pp. 648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Aaron Parkinson ◽  
Jennifer Arcaroli ◽  
Robert Peters ◽  
Jennifer Lake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implants ◽  
Adults And Children

Genetic Causes of Hearing Loss in a Large Cohort of Cochlear Implant Recipients

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110213
Author(s):  
Kristen L. Seligman ◽  
A. Eliot Shearer ◽  
Kathy Frees ◽  
Carla Nishimura ◽  
Diana Kolbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Large Cohort ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Genetic Causes ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
The Relationship

Understanding genetic causes of hearing loss can determine the pattern and course of a patient’s hearing loss and may also predict outcomes after cochlear implantation. Our goal in this study was to evaluate genetic causes of hearing loss in a large cohort of adults and children with cochlear implants. We performed comprehensive genetic testing on all patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Of the 459 patients included in the study, 128 (28%) had positive genetic testing. In total, 44 genes were identified as causative. The top 5 genes implicated were GJB2 (20, 16%), TMPRSS3 (13, 10%), SLC26A4 (10, 8%), MYO7A (9, 7%), and MT-RNR1 (7, 5%). Pediatric patients had a higher diagnostic rate. This study lays the groundwork for future studies evaluating the relationship between genetic variation and cochlear implant performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document