The relation between age at the time of cochlear implantation and long-term speech perception abilities in congenitally deaf subjects

Snik, A.F.M.; Makhdoum, M.; Vermeulen, Anneke; Brokx, J.P.L.; Broeka, Paul van den

doi:10.1016/s0165-5876(97)00058-x

Cited by 69 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Children implanted at an age above 6 years did not perform as well as children in the latter group, indicating that the velocity and the amount of benefit is dependent on age at implantation and decreases in children implanted at age 6 or older. These findings confirm earlier observations of Fryauf-Bertschy et al [26], Miyamoto et al [23] and Snik et al [27]. Although the mean benefit of children implanted at an older age is markedly lower than in the other groups, they may still profit from implantation, particularly those with residual hearing and relatively good verbal speech development prior to implantation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The age at implantation was not regarded as an independent factor as it was closely correlated to the age at the beginning of deafness in their study group. In another study [27] children implanted between 4 and 8 years of age obtained the best results with mean EHL of 90 dB after 2 years. Children who were implanted between 11 and 13 years reached an EHL of 105 dB whereas prelingually deaf patients who were implanted as adults only progressed during the first year after implantation and stayed at EHL of 108 to 120 dB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Thus, a quantitative comparison between cochlear implants and hearing aids becomes possible. Snik et al [27,32,33] introduced the concept of the equivalent hearing loss comparing results of 16 cochlear implanted children (Nucleus 22 mini) with a group of 46 children wearing hearing aids with pure tone averages ranging from 50-130 dB. Children that became deaf after meningitis prior to the age of 3 years and were implanted between 4 and 7 years obtained an equivalent hearing loss of around 70-80 dB HL [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Results of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Compared with Results Obtained with Hearing Aids

Kiefer¹,

Pfennigdorff²,

Spelsberg³

et al. 1999

Otorhinolaryngol Nova

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The performance of cochlear implanted children was evaluated in comparison with results of children wearing hearing aids. Patients and Methods: 88 cochlear implanted children were included in this study. Onset of deafness was prelingual (except 1 perilingual), mean age at implantation was 5.4 years (range 1–17.2), preoperative pure tone average (PTA) ranged from 130 to 83 dB HL in the better ear with a mean value of 110.5 dB HL. The hearing aid group consisted of 34 children with prelingual onset of hearing loss. PTA ranged from 122 to 46 dB HL, mean age at test was 5.3 years (range 1.3–15.4). The ‘Frankfurt Functional Hearing Test’ was used for evaluation. Based on the results of the hearing aid group, predicted performance with hearing aids was calculated individually for all cochlear implanted children and compared to the actual results with cochlear implants. Results and Conclusions: Results of cochlear implanted children improved steadily after implantation, progressing from a compound score of 22% prior to implantation to 72.2% after 4–9 years. Actual performance with cochlear implants was significantly better than predicted values with hearing aids. Children implanted prior to age 6 showed a greater benefit and faster improvements after implantation than children implanted later. The performance of children implanted beween age 2 and 4 was equivalent to the mean performance of children with hearing loss of 70–85 dB wearing hearing aids.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Compared with Results Obtained with Hearing Aids

Kiefer¹,

Pfennigdorff²,

Spelsberg³

et al. 1999

Otorhinolaryngol Nova

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the early years of cochlear implantation, results from this population were not very promising, with subjects experiencing very limited benefit with respect to speech understanding (Tong et al, 1988;van den Broek et al, 1992;Snik et al, 1997). With advancements in speech processing strategies, these subjects have generally become more successful CI users, albeit with large inter-individual differences (Teoh et al, 2004;Caposecco et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance

Debruyne

Francart

Janssen

et al. 2016

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study investigated the hypotheses that (1) prelingually deafened CI users do not have perfect electrode discrimination ability and (2) the deactivation of non-discriminable electrodes can improve auditory performance. Design: Electrode discrimination difference limens were determined for all electrodes of the array. The subjects' basic map was subsequently compared to an experimental map, which contained only discriminable electrodes, with respect to speech understanding in quiet and in noise, listening effort, spectral ripple discrimination and subjective appreciation. Study Sample: Subjects were six prelingually deafened, late implanted adults using the Nucleus cochlear implant. Results: Electrode discrimination difference limens across all subjects and electrodes ranged from 0.5 to 7.125, with significantly larger limens for basal electrodes. No significant differences were found between the basic map and the experimental map on auditory tests. Subjective appreciation was found to be significantly poorer for the experimental map. Conclusions: Prelingually deafened CI users were unable to discriminate between all adjacent electrodes. There was no difference in auditory performance between the basic and experimental map. Potential factors contributing to the absence of improvement with the experimental map include the reduced number of maxima, incomplete adaptation to the new frequency allocation, and the mainly basal location of deactivated electrodes.

show abstract

“…Prelingually deafened children using cochlear implant show delayed language skills compared to their typically developing peers as they experienced a period of auditory deprivation before cochlear implantation [Svirsky et al, 2004]. Restoration of an adequate auditory signal through cochlear implant by the age of 2 years is associated with an almost normal language development [Svirsky et al, 2004], while cochlear implantation in older children is deemed to produce delayed speech acquisition due to the increased length of auditory deprivation [Fryauf-Bertschy et al, 1997;Manrique et al, 1999;Snik et al, 1997;Svirsky et al, 2004]. These findings support the existence of a sensitive period for language development declining with age and related to central plasticity [Johnson and Newport, 1991].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The outcome of cochlear implantation in patients with deafness of prelingual onset is largely unpredictable due to high individual variability. This study evaluated speech perception performances in a group of 18 prelingually deafened subjects (aged 13–30 years) which was homogeneous with respect to duration of deafness, hearing aid use before cochlear implantation, mode of communication and administration of auditory-oral speech therapy. Word discrimination length, word and sentence identification, phoneme identification and word and sentence recognition were tested before cochlear implantation and at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years of cochlear implant use. Scores on all tests significantly improved after cochlear implantation, although mean values were lower compared to those achieved by postlingually deafened patients. Speech performances on both word and sentence recognition continued to increase over time also beyond 1 year after cochlear implantation. Moreover, scores on sentence recognition tests were significantly higher compared to disyllabic words at 3 years of cochlear implant use. The presence of an auditory input delivered by hearing aids before cochlear implantation associated with auditory-oral therapy and a good level of education may positively influence the cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.

show abstract

The relation between age at the time of cochlear implantation and long-term speech perception abilities in congenitally deaf subjects

Cited by 69 publications

References 6 publications

Results of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Compared with Results Obtained with Hearing Aids

Results of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Compared with Results Obtained with Hearing Aids

Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About