Tracking Development of Speech Recognition

Wang, Nae Yuh; Eisenberg, Laurie S.; Fink, Nancy E.; Tobey, Emily A.; Quittner, Alexandra L.; Niparko, John K.; Johnson, Karen C.; DesJardin, Jean L.; Gillinger, Melinda; Luxford, William M.; Martinez, Amy S.; Visser-Dumont, Leslie; Stika, Carren J.; Ambrose, Sophie E.; Hammes-Ganguly, Dianne; Mertes, Jennifer; Bowditch, Steve; Chinnici, Jill; Francis, Howard W.; Ostrander, Rick; Yeagle, Jennifer; Mellon, Nancy K.; Kane, Mary O.Leary; Wainscott, Sarah; Wallace, Jennifer D.; Hodges, Annelle V.; Bałkany, Thomas J.; Lopez, Alina; Goodwin, Leslie O.; Payne, Stacy L.; Zwolan, Teresa A.; Donaldson, Amy; Arts, H. Alexander; Butler, B P; El-Kashlam, Hussam; Heavner, Krista; O'Sullivan, Mary Beth; Telian, Steve; Thomas, Ellen; Vereb, Anita; Brown, Carolyn J.; Teagle, Holly F. B.; Buchman, Craig A.; Zdanski, Carlton J.; Eskridge, Hannah R; Pillsbury, Harold C.; Loy, Betty; Bauer, Paul W.; Boyd, Angela; Cantù, Laura; Cokely, Carol Geltman; Florence, Sarah; Gisclair, Janee; Levitan, Laura; Penrad, Joy; Raby, Shannon; Rasmus, Jamie; Roland, Peter S.; MacFadyen, Heather; Pearson, Donise; Rekart, Deborah M.; Sacar, Lauren; Sweeney, Melissa; Wagner, Lilly H.; Weissner, Nicole; Williams, Berkley; Bayton, Patricia; Vilche, Thelma; Habtemariam, Daniel; Leibach, Pam; Cruz, Ivette; Cohen, Noel L.; Evans, Julia L.; Geers, Ann E.; Kirk, Karen Iler

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3181627a37

Cited by 71 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several previous studies indicate that this may be the case (Archbold et al, 2008; Desjardin et al, 2009; Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2008; Spencer & Oleson, 2008; Wang et al, 2008; Wie, 2010; Yoshinaga-Itano et al, 2010). More recently, in a study of spoken language outcomes of 188 children using CIs three years after implantation, children implanted prior to 18 months of age showed steeper rates of growth in language on the Reynell Developmental Language Scales (RDLS) (Reynell & Gruber, 1990) than children implanted between 18 months and 5 years of age (although on average, they did not reach age-appropriate levels) (Niparko et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users

Tobey¹,

Thal

Niparko

et al. 2013

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

161

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study examined specific spoken language abilities of 160 children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss followed prospectively 4, 5, or 6 years after cochlear implantation. Study sample Ninety-eight children received implants before 2.5 years, and 62 children received implants between 2.5 and 5 years of age. Design Language was assessed using four subtests of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL). Standard scores were evaluated by contrasting age of implantation and follow-up test time. Results Children implanted under 2.5 years of age achieved higher standard scores than children with older ages of implantation for expressive vocabulary, expressive syntax, and pragmatic judgments. However, in both groups, some children performed more than two standard deviations below the standardization group mean, while some scored at or well above the mean. Conclusions Younger ages of implantation are associated with higher levels of performance, while later ages of implantation are associated with higher probabilities of continued language delays, particularly within subdomains of grammar and pragmatics. Longitudinal data from this cohort study demonstrate that after 6 years of implant experience, there is large variability in language outcomes associated with modifiers of rates of language learning that differ as children with implants age.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users

Tobey¹,

Thal

Niparko

et al. 2013

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

161

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A battery of age and developmentally appropriate speech perception tests was employed at follow-up audiology appointments [34]. Results from open-set monosyllabic word tests, usually the phonetically balanced kindergarten word test (PB-k), were selected as the outcome measure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical role of electrocochleography in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder

Fontenot

Giardina

Teagle

et al. 2017

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES To assess electrocochleography (ECochG) to tones as an instrument to account for CI speech perception outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). MATERIALS & METHODS Children (<18 years) receiving CIs for ANSD (n=30) and non-ANSD (n=74) etiologies of hearing loss were evaluated with ECochG using tone bursts (0.25–4 kHz). The total response (TR) is the sum of spectral peaks of responses across frequencies. The compound action potential (CAP) and the auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN) in ECochG waveforms were used to estimate nerve activity and calculate nerve score. Performance on open-set monosyllabic word tests was the outcome measure. Standard statistical methods were applied. RESULTS On average, TR was larger in ANSD than in non-ANSD subjects. Most ANSD (73.3%) and non-ANSD (87.8%) subjects achieved open-set speech perception; TR accounted for 33% and 20% of variability in the outcomes, respectively. In the ANSD group, the PTA accounted for 69.3% of the variability, but there was no relationship with outcomes in the non-ANSD group. In both populations, nerve score was sensitive in identifying subjects at risk for not acquiring open-set speech perception, while the CAP and the ANN were more specific. CONCLUSION In both subject groups, the TRs correlated with outcomes but these measures were notably larger in the ANSD group. There was also strong correlation between PTA and speech perception outcome in ANSD group. In both subject populations, weaker evidence of neural activity was related to failure to achieve open-set speech perception.

show abstract

“…Child performance was summarized by a cumulative index, the Speech Recognition Index in Quiet (SRI-Q) [24] that descriptively captured progression through the hierarchy each post-CI interval (For a complete description of the SRI-Q [44], Figure 1 shows the median (solid line) SRI-Q on this hierarchical battery from baseline through 5 years post-CI across our entire CI sample [45]). Also shown are estimates of the 90th and 10th percentiles of performance (dashed lines).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Longitudinal Study of U.S. Children Unable to Achieve Open-Set Speech Recognition 5 Years After Cochlear Implantation

Barnard

Fisher

Johnson

et al. 2015

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To identify characteristics associated with inability to progress to open-set speech recognition in children who are 5 years post cochlear implantation. Study Design Prospective, longitudinal and multidimensional assessment of auditory development over 5 years. Setting Six tertiary cochlear implant (CI) referral centers in the US. Patients Children with severe-to-profound hearing loss who underwent implantation before age 5 years enrolled in the Childhood Development after Cochlear Implant (CDaCI) study, categorized by level of speech recognition ability. Intervention(s) Cochlear implantation prior to 5 years of age and annual assessment of emergent speech recognition skills. Main outcome measure(s) Progression to open-set speech recognition by 5 years after implantation. Results Less functional hearing prior to implantation, older age at onset of amplification, lower maternal sensitivity to communication needs, minority status, and complicated perinatal history were associated with inability to obtain open set speech recognition by 5 years. Conclusions Characteristics of a subpopulation of children with CIs that were associated with an inability to achieve open-set speech recognition after 5 years of CI experience were investigated. These data distinguish pediatric CI recipients at risk for poor auditory development and highlight areas for future interventions to enhance support of early implantation.

show abstract

Tracking Development of Speech Recognition

Abstract: SRI-Q allows tracking of global development of speech recognition over time as children progress through a hierarchy of speech perception measures and complements the more detailed assessments obtained from individual tests within the hierarchy.

Cited by 71 publications

References 5 publications

Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users

Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users

Clinical role of electrocochleography in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder

A Prospective Longitudinal Study of U.S. Children Unable to Achieve Open-Set Speech Recognition 5 Years After Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About