Factors contributing to limited open-set speech perception in children who use a cochlear implant

Acoustic analysis of the speech of children with cochlear implants: A longitudinal study

“…Moreover, in addition to timeliness, the regularity of therapy has been proven essential. Even short and sporadic breaks in therapy, or failure to use the implant regularly, regardless of their reasons, have had negative effects on the patients' performance, which is in agreement with literature data (Gordon et al, 2000;Vlahović & Š indija, 2004). We suspect that many endogenous and exogenous factors, such as family support, children's cognitive styles and preverbal and nonverbal competencies play very important roles in the outcome of the rehabilitation as has been suggested by a number of authors (Pisoni, 2000;Tait et al, 2000;Surowiecki et al, 2002;Nikolopoulos et al, 2004).…”

“…As it can be clearly seen from Table I, the group of children with cochlear implants was heterogenous with respect to a number of variables, including those that are generally considered to have major impact on the perception and production of speech (Gordon et al, 2000;Pisoni, 2000;Tait et al, 2000;Surowiecki et al, 2002;Nikolopoulos et al, 2004;Vlahović & Š indija, 2004). Therefore, we could not make any reliable or valid analyses of possible interactions.…”

“…The effectiveness of cochlear implants is most frequently tested by means of listening and comprehension tests and/or by analysis of the speech of their users (O'Donoghue, Nikolopoulos, Archbold, & Tait, 1999;Richter, Eissele, Laszig, & Lohle, 2002;Houston, Pisoni, Iler Kirk, Ying, & Miyamoto, 2003;Calmels et al, 2004). Various factors have been found to affect the rehabilitation outcome, among which age at implantation and duration of therapy seem to be of great, but not exclusive importance (Gordon, Daya, Harrison, & Papsin, 2000;Pisoni, 2000;Tait, Luttman, & Robinson, 2000;Dowell et al, 2002;Surowiecki et al, 2002;Mildner & Liker, 2003;Nikolopoulos, Gibbin, & Dyar, 2004;Vlahović & Š indija, 2004). …”

The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

“…Their results vary from quite poor to considerable benefit. The differences in results might be due to different criteria used to assess the benefit [9][10][11][12]. According to the literature, most of children with multiple handicaps which have a negative impact on speech and language development, e.g.…”

Is psychological status a determinant of speech perception outcomes in highly selected good adolescent cochlear implant users?

“…Despite expectations of good post-implant outcomes, most adolescent cochlear implant users often show less benefit from implants after 2-3 years of experience than their younger peers [13,14]. However, by considering positive but imperfect correlation between audiological benefit and psychological outcomes in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users [15], it is reasonable to hypothesize that audiological benefit could also afford highly selected good adolescent implant recipients some psychological benefit.…”