Communication Abilities of Children with Aided Residual Hearing: Comparison with Cochlear Implant Users

Laurie S. Eisenberg, Karen Iler Kirk, Amy Schaefer Martinez, Elizabeth A. Ying, Richard Miyamoto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

75 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the communication outcomes between children with aided residual hearing and children with cochlear implants. Design: Measures of speech recognition and language were administered to pediatric hearing aid users and cochlear implant users followed up longitudinally as part of an ongoing investigation on cochlear implant outcomes. The speech recognition measures included the Lexical Neighborhood Test, Phonetically Balanced-Kindergarten Word Lists, and the Hearing in Noise Test for Children presented in quiet and noise (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Language measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Third Edition (PPVT-III), the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised. Subjects: The experimental group was composed of 39 pediatric hearing aid users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 78.2 dB HL (hearing level). The comparison group was composed of 117 pediatric cochlear implant users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 110.2 dB HL. On average, both groups lost their hearing at younger than 1 year and were fitted with their respective sensory aids at 2 to 2.6 years of age. Not every child was administered every test for a variety of reasons. Results: Between-group performance was equivalent on most speech recognition and language measures. The primary difference found between groups was on the PPVT-III, in which the hearing aid group had a significantly higher receptive vocabulary language quotient than the cochlear implant group. Notably, the cochlear implant group was substantially younger than the hearing aid group and had less experience with their sensory devices on this measure. Conclusion: Data obtained from children with aided residual hearing can be useful in determining cochlear implant candidacy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)563-569
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume130
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2004

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Cochlear Implants
Hearing
Communication
Language
Hearing Aids
Language Tests
Pediatrics
Sensory Aids
Noise
Vocabulary
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Communication Abilities of Children with Aided Residual Hearing : Comparison with Cochlear Implant Users. / Eisenberg, Laurie S.; Kirk, Karen Iler; Martinez, Amy Schaefer; Ying, Elizabeth A.; Miyamoto, Richard.

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 130, No. 5, 05.2004, p. 563-569.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Eisenberg, Laurie S. ; Kirk, Karen Iler ; Martinez, Amy Schaefer ; Ying, Elizabeth A. ; Miyamoto, Richard. / Communication Abilities of Children with Aided Residual Hearing : Comparison with Cochlear Implant Users. In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2004 ; Vol. 130, No. 5. pp. 563-569.
@article{b4e47d619dee4956a1688a7524e6f2c8,
title = "Communication Abilities of Children with Aided Residual Hearing: Comparison with Cochlear Implant Users",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the communication outcomes between children with aided residual hearing and children with cochlear implants. Design: Measures of speech recognition and language were administered to pediatric hearing aid users and cochlear implant users followed up longitudinally as part of an ongoing investigation on cochlear implant outcomes. The speech recognition measures included the Lexical Neighborhood Test, Phonetically Balanced-Kindergarten Word Lists, and the Hearing in Noise Test for Children presented in quiet and noise (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Language measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Third Edition (PPVT-III), the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised. Subjects: The experimental group was composed of 39 pediatric hearing aid users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 78.2 dB HL (hearing level). The comparison group was composed of 117 pediatric cochlear implant users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 110.2 dB HL. On average, both groups lost their hearing at younger than 1 year and were fitted with their respective sensory aids at 2 to 2.6 years of age. Not every child was administered every test for a variety of reasons. Results: Between-group performance was equivalent on most speech recognition and language measures. The primary difference found between groups was on the PPVT-III, in which the hearing aid group had a significantly higher receptive vocabulary language quotient than the cochlear implant group. Notably, the cochlear implant group was substantially younger than the hearing aid group and had less experience with their sensory devices on this measure. Conclusion: Data obtained from children with aided residual hearing can be useful in determining cochlear implant candidacy.",
author = "Eisenberg, {Laurie S.} and Kirk, {Karen Iler} and Martinez, {Amy Schaefer} and Ying, {Elizabeth A.} and Richard Miyamoto",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1001/archotol.130.5.563",
language = "English",
volume = "130",
pages = "563--569",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication Abilities of Children with Aided Residual Hearing

T2 - Comparison with Cochlear Implant Users

AU - Eisenberg, Laurie S.

AU - Kirk, Karen Iler

AU - Martinez, Amy Schaefer

AU - Ying, Elizabeth A.

AU - Miyamoto, Richard

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Objective: To compare the communication outcomes between children with aided residual hearing and children with cochlear implants. Design: Measures of speech recognition and language were administered to pediatric hearing aid users and cochlear implant users followed up longitudinally as part of an ongoing investigation on cochlear implant outcomes. The speech recognition measures included the Lexical Neighborhood Test, Phonetically Balanced-Kindergarten Word Lists, and the Hearing in Noise Test for Children presented in quiet and noise (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Language measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Third Edition (PPVT-III), the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised. Subjects: The experimental group was composed of 39 pediatric hearing aid users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 78.2 dB HL (hearing level). The comparison group was composed of 117 pediatric cochlear implant users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 110.2 dB HL. On average, both groups lost their hearing at younger than 1 year and were fitted with their respective sensory aids at 2 to 2.6 years of age. Not every child was administered every test for a variety of reasons. Results: Between-group performance was equivalent on most speech recognition and language measures. The primary difference found between groups was on the PPVT-III, in which the hearing aid group had a significantly higher receptive vocabulary language quotient than the cochlear implant group. Notably, the cochlear implant group was substantially younger than the hearing aid group and had less experience with their sensory devices on this measure. Conclusion: Data obtained from children with aided residual hearing can be useful in determining cochlear implant candidacy.

AB - Objective: To compare the communication outcomes between children with aided residual hearing and children with cochlear implants. Design: Measures of speech recognition and language were administered to pediatric hearing aid users and cochlear implant users followed up longitudinally as part of an ongoing investigation on cochlear implant outcomes. The speech recognition measures included the Lexical Neighborhood Test, Phonetically Balanced-Kindergarten Word Lists, and the Hearing in Noise Test for Children presented in quiet and noise (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Language measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Third Edition (PPVT-III), the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised. Subjects: The experimental group was composed of 39 pediatric hearing aid users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 78.2 dB HL (hearing level). The comparison group was composed of 117 pediatric cochlear implant users with a mean unaided pure-tone average threshold of 110.2 dB HL. On average, both groups lost their hearing at younger than 1 year and were fitted with their respective sensory aids at 2 to 2.6 years of age. Not every child was administered every test for a variety of reasons. Results: Between-group performance was equivalent on most speech recognition and language measures. The primary difference found between groups was on the PPVT-III, in which the hearing aid group had a significantly higher receptive vocabulary language quotient than the cochlear implant group. Notably, the cochlear implant group was substantially younger than the hearing aid group and had less experience with their sensory devices on this measure. Conclusion: Data obtained from children with aided residual hearing can be useful in determining cochlear implant candidacy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342554405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342554405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archotol.130.5.563

DO - 10.1001/archotol.130.5.563

M3 - Article

C2 - 15148177

AN - SCOPUS:2342554405

VL - 130

SP - 563

EP - 569

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 5

ER -