45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implants in Children: A Study of Spoken Language Outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          Although it has been established that bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) offer additional speech perception and localization benefits to many children with severe to profound hearing loss, whether these improved perceptual abilities facilitate significantly better language development has not yet been clearly established. The aims of this study were to compare language abilities of children having unilateral and bilateral CIs to quantify the rate of any improvement in language attributable to bilateral CIs and to document other predictors of language development in children with CIs.

          Design:

          The receptive vocabulary and language development of 91 children was assessed when they were aged either 5 or 8 years old by using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (fourth edition), and either the Preschool Language Scales (fourth edition) or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (fourth edition), respectively. Cognitive ability, parent involvement in children’s intervention or education programs, and family reading habits were also evaluated. Language outcomes were examined by using linear regression analyses. The influence of elements of parenting style, child characteristics, and family background as predictors of outcomes were examined.

          Results:

          Children using bilateral CIs achieved significantly better vocabulary outcomes and significantly higher scores on the Core and Expressive Language subscales of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (fourth edition) than did comparable children with unilateral CIs. Scores on the Preschool Language Scales (fourth edition) did not differ significantly between children with unilateral and bilateral CIs. Bilateral CI use was found to predict significantly faster rates of vocabulary and language development than unilateral CI use; the magnitude of this effect was moderated by child age at activation of the bilateral CI. In terms of parenting style, high levels of parental involvement, low amounts of screen time, and more time spent by adults reading to children facilitated significantly better vocabulary and language outcomes. In terms of child characteristics, higher cognitive ability and female sex were predictive of significantly better language outcomes. When family background factors were examined, having tertiary-educated primary caregivers and a family history of hearing loss were significantly predictive of better outcomes. Birth order was also found to have a significant negative effect on both vocabulary and language outcomes, with each older sibling predicting a 5 to 10% decrease in scores.

          Conclusions:

          Children with bilateral CIs achieved significantly better vocabulary outcomes, and 8-year-old children with bilateral CIs had significantly better language outcomes than did children with unilateral CIs. These improvements were moderated by children’s ages at both first and second CIs. The outcomes were also significantly predicted by a number of factors related to parenting, child characteristics, and family background. Fifty-one percent of the variance in vocabulary outcomes and between 59 to 69% of the variance in language outcomes was predicted by the regression models.

          Abstract

          The study compared language abilities of children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants (CIs), quantified the rate of language development attributable to bilateral CIs and documented predictors of language development. Children with bilateral CIs achieved significantly better vocabulary outcomes, and 8-year-old children with bilateral CIs had significantly better language outcomes. Improvements were moderated by children’s ages at both first and second CIs. Outcomes were significantly predicted by a number of factors related to parenting, child characteristics, and family background. Fifty-one percent of the variance in vocabulary outcomes and between 59 to 69% of the variance in language outcomes was predicted by the regression models.

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time

          Objective To test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors. Study Design Retrospective multi-centre study. Methods Data from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses. Results The significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL. Conclusions A new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

              PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Published in the public domain by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Speech and language development is a useful indicator of a child's overall development and cognitive ability and is related to school success. Identification of children at risk for developmental delay or related problems may lead to intervention services and family assistance at a young age, when the chances for improvement are best. However, optimal methods for screening for speech and language delay have not been identified, and screening is practiced inconsistently in primary care. We sought to evaluate the strengths and limits of evidence about the effectiveness of screening and interventions for speech and language delay in preschool-aged children to determine the balance of benefits and adverse effects of routine screening in primary care for the development of guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The target population includes all children up to 5 years old without previously known conditions associated with speech and language delay, such as hearing and neurologic impairments. Studies were identified from Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (1966 to November 19, 2004), systematic reviews, reference lists, and experts. The evidence review included only English-language, published articles that are available through libraries. Only randomized, controlled trials were considered for examining the effectiveness of interventions. Outcome measures were considered if they were obtained at any time or age after screening and/or intervention as long as the initial assessment occurred while the child was or =2 screening techniques in 1 population, and comparisons of a single screening technique across different populations are lacking. Fourteen good- and fair-quality randomized, controlled trials of interventions reported significantly improved speech and language outcomes compared with control groups. Improvement was demonstrated in several domains including articulation, phonology, expressive language, receptive language, lexical acquisition, and syntax among children in all age groups studied and across multiple therapeutic settings. Improvement in other functional outcomes such as socialization skills, self-esteem, and improved play themes were demonstrated in some, but not all, of the 4 studies that measured them. In general, studies of interventions were small and heterogeneous, may be subject to plateau effects, and reported short-term outcomes based on various instruments and measures. As a result, long-term outcomes are not known, interventions could not be compared directly, and generalizability is questionable. Use of risk factors to guide selective screening is not supported by studies. Several aspects of screening have been inadequately studied to determine optimal methods, including which instrument to use, the age at which to screen, and which interval is most useful. Trials of interventions demonstrate improvement in some outcome measures, but conclusions and generalizability are limited. Data are not available addressing other key issues including the effectiveness of screening in primary care settings, role of enhanced surveillance by primary care physicians before referral for diagnostic evaluation, non-speech and language and long-term benefits of interventions, and adverse effects of screening and interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ear Hear
                Ear Hear
                AUD
                Ear and Hearing
                Williams And Wilkins
                0196-0202
                1538-4667
                July 2014
                23 June 2014
                : 35
                : 4
                : 396-409
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and [2 ]Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Julia Sarant, Audiology, Hearing and Speech Sciences, 550 Swanston Street, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. E-mail: jsarant@ 123456unimelb.edu.au
                Article
                00002
                10.1097/AUD.0000000000000022
                4072444
                24557003
                8e4ce7c9-eaef-4bc6-bada-90f43897a7d0
                Copyright © 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                Categories
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                bilateral,children,cochlear implant,spoken language,unilateral

                Comments

                Comment on this article