Behavioral Assessment of Prelingually Deaf Children Before Cochlear Implantation

Horn, David L.; Pisoni, David B.; Sanders, Mary J.; Miyamoto, Richard T.

doi:10.1097/01.mlg.0000171018.97692.c0

Cited by 32 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…10,11 Seventy-four per cent of all children performed in the bottom 15% (≤À1 z-score) and 57% in the bottom 5% of a standardized motor performance assessment. A comparable distribution (50%) in the bottom 5% was found by Livingstone and McPhillips.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,[7][8][9] Studies reporting normal levels of motor development were based on parent questionnaires (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales) and had no direct motor examination. 10,11 Livingstone and McPhillips showed that about 80% of 25 children with a bilateral hearing impairment >60dB (mean age 8y 8mo) scored in the bottom 15% (borderline) and about 50% in the bottom 5% (definite problems) of the standardized sample of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. 5 In other words, 80% of those with hearing impairment reached the cut-off of motor performance for a possible diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Motor performance and correlates of mental health in children who are deaf or hard of hearing

Fellinger

Holzinger²,

Aigner

et al. 2015

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SDQStrengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ZNA Z€ urich Neuromotor Assessment AIM This cross-sectional study investigates the relationship between motor performance and mental health in a representative population of children with hearing impairment.METHOD Ninety-three pupils (45 males, 48 females) aged 6 years to 16 years (mean 11y 3mo, SD 2y 9mo) with hearing impairment of at least 40dB and a Nonverbal IQ greater than 70 were assessed for motor performance with the Z€ urich Neuromotor Assessment (ZNA) and for mental health with the parent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). RESULTS Children with hearing impairment had lower motor performance scores in all fourZNA subscales compared with ZNA norms (z-scores À1.42 to À2.67). After controlling for Nonverbal IQ, ZNA pure motor performance correlated negatively with the SDQ total difficulties score. Pure motor, pegboard, and dynamic balance subscales correlated negatively with peer-relationship problems. Dynamic balance correlated negatively with emotional problems. Performance in pure motor and dynamic balance skills correlated negatively with age. Except for static balance, no correlation was found between motor performance and the degree of hearing impairment.INTERPRETATION Results confirm that a high percentage of children with hearing impairment have poor motor performance. These problems are associated with difficulties in social relationships. Early recognition of these problems may lead to interventions to assist children with hearing impairment with their peer relationships.In Western countries, 1 to 2 of every 1000 children are affected by permanent bilateral hearing loss of at least moderate degree. 1,2 Hearing impairment is associated with a large range of consequences on the child's social, cognitive, emotional, and neuromotor development.3-5 Previous research has concentrated on the impact of hearing impairment on language development and mental health. 3,4,6 With respect to motor performance, several studies have found that children with hearing impairment show deficits in motor development. These studies used a variety of instruments and were based on samples that may not have been representative of the population of children with hearing impairment.5,7-9 Studies reporting normal levels of motor development were based on parent questionnaires (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales) and had no direct motor examination. 10,11 Livingstone and McPhillips showed that about 80% of 25 children with a bilateral hearing impairment >60dB (mean age 8y 8mo) scored in the bottom 15% (borderline) and about 50% in the bottom 5% (definite problems) of the standardized sample of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. 5 In other words, 80% of those with hearing impairment reached the cut-off of motor performance for a possible diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder. 12Considering different aspects of motor development, the greatest deficits were shown in balance and complex motor tasks. 5,7,13 One study matching 32 children wi...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor performance and correlates of mental health in children who are deaf or hard of hearing

Fellinger

Holzinger²,

Aigner

et al. 2015

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several investigators have reported that deaf children with CIs show more age-typical performance on visual-only tests of sustained attention than deaf children without CIs who use hearing aids (Quittner, Smith, Osberger, Mitchell, & Katz, 1994;Smith, Quittner, Osberger & Miyamoto, 1998). Sustained attention has also been shown to improve with length of CI use (Horn, Davis, Pisoni & Miyamoto, 2005b) .Furthermore, the ability of prelingually-deaf children with CIs to regulate and delay premature behavioral responses has been shown to increase with CI use and to be related to performance on several spoken-language measures (Horn et al, 2005). The findings obtained with the Visual Motor Precision task provide additional converging support for these earlier findings on the development of attention and behavioral regulation, processes that reflect the operation of cognitive control and executive function.…”

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the results from these earlier studies cannot be generalized easily to the current population of prelingually deaf children who present for a CI. Two recent studies carried out in our center by Horn et al (2005Horn et al ( , 2006 addressed several questions about the development of visual-motor integration skills.…”

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In hearing children, motor development assessed in infancy has been shown to be strongly associated with language outcomes in later childhood. The study carried out by Horn, Pisoni et al (2005) was the first investigation to demonstrate that preimplant measures of motor development predict post-implant language outcomes in profoundly deaf infants and young children who have received a CI.…”

Section: Neuropsychological Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children

Pisoni¹,

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A large body of clinical research over the last decade demonstrates that cochlear implants work and provide significant speech and language benefits to profoundly deaf adults and prelingually deaf children. The most challenging research problem today is that cochlear implants do not work equally well for everyone who has a profound hearing loss and cochlear implants frequently do not provide much benefit at all under highly degraded listening conditions. Some individuals do extremely well on traditional audiologic outcome measures with their cochlear implants when tested under benign listening conditions in the clinic and research laboratory while others have much more difficulty. However, all patients with cochlear implants uniformly have difficulty in a number of challenging perceptual domains such as: listening in noise, talking on the telephone, localizing sounds, recognizing familiar voices and different dialects, identifying environmental sounds and listening to music. The enormous variability in outcome and benefit following implantation is not surprising because none of the current generation of cochlear implants successfully restores normal hearing or supports robust speech perception and spoken language processing across all of these difficult and highly variable listening conditions. The traditional outcome measures of audiologic benefit were never designed to assess, understand or explain individual differences in speech perception and spoken language processing. In this chapter, we summarize recent findings that suggest several promising new directions for understanding and explaining variability in outcome and benefit after implantation. These results have implications for the design of new cochlear implants as well as the development of radically new approaches to intervention, training and habilitation following implantation.

show abstract