Patti M Johnstone | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children.

This study evaluated functional benefits from bilateral stimulation in 20 children ages 4-14, 10 use two CIs and 10 use one CI and one HA. Localization acuity was measured with the minimum audible angle (MAA). Speech intelligibility was measured in quiet, and in the presence of 2-talker competing speech using the CRISP forced-choice test. Results show that both groups perform similarly when speech reception thresholds are evaluated. However, there appears to be benefit (improved MAA and speech thresholds) from wearing two devices compared with a single device that is significantly greater in the group with two CI than in the bimodal group. Individual variability also suggests that some children perform similarly to normal-hearing children, while others clearly do not. Future advances in binaural fitting strategies and improved speech processing schemes that maximize binaural sensitivity will no doubt contribute to increasing the binaurally-driven advantages in persons with bilateral CIs.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sound localization acuity in a group of children who received bilateral (BI) cochlear implants in sequential procedures and to determine the extent to which BI auditory experience affects sound localization acuity. In addition, to investigate the extent to which a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear can also provide benefits on this task. DESIGN: Two groups of children participated, 13 with BI cochlear implants (cochlear implant + cochlear implant), ranging in age from 3 to 16 yrs, and six with a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (cochlear implant + hearing aid), ages 4 to 14 yrs. Testing was conducted in large sound-treated booths with loudspeakers positioned on a horizontal arc with a radius of 1.5 m. Stimuli were spondaic words recorded with a male voice. Stimulus levels typically averaged 60 dB SPL and were randomly roved between 56 and 64 dB SPL (+/-4 dB rove); in a few instances, levels were held fixed (60 dB SPL). Testing was conducted by using a "listening game" platform via computerized interactive software, and the ability of each child to discriminate sounds presented to the right or left was measured for loudspeakers subtending various angular separations. Minimum audible angle thresholds were measured in the BI (cochlear implant + cochlear implant or cochlear implant + hearing aid) listening mode and under monaural conditions. RESULTS: Approximately 70% (9/13) of children in the cochlear implant + cochlear implant group discriminated left/right for source separations of <or=20 degrees , and, of those, 77% (7/9) performed better when listening bilaterally than with either cochlear implant alone. Several children were also able to perform the task when using a single cochlear implant, under some conditions. Minimum audible angle thresholds were better in the first cochlear implant than the second cochlear implant listening mode for nearly all (8/9) subjects. Repeated testing of a few individual subjects over a 2-yr period suggests that robust improvements in performance occurred with increased auditory experience. Children who wore hearing aids in the nonimplanted ear were at times also able to perform the task. Average group performance was worse than that of the children with BI cochlear implants when both ears were activated (cochlear implant + hearing aid versus cochlear implant + cochlear implant) but not significantly different when listening with a single cochlear implant. CONCLUSIONS: Children with sequential BI cochlear implants represent a unique population of individuals who have undergone variable amounts of auditory deprivation in each ear. Our findings suggest that many but not all of these children perform better on measures of localization acuity with two cochlear implants compared with one and are better at the task than children using the cochlear implant + hearing aid. These results must be interpreted with caution, because benefits on other tasks as well as the long-term benefits of BI cochlear implants are yet to be fully understood. The factors that might contribute to such benefits must be carefully evaluated in large populations of children using a variety of measures.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Effect of masker type and age on speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in children and adults.

Speech recognition in noisy environments improves when the speech signal is spatially separated from the interfering sound. This effect, known as spatial release from masking (SRM), was recently shown in young children. The present study compared SRM in children of ages 5-7 with adults for interferers introducing energetic, informational, and/or linguistic components. Three types of interferers were used: speech, reversed speech, and modulated white noise. Two female voices with different long-term spectra were also used. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were compared for: Quiet (target 0 degrees front, no interferer), Front (target and interferer both 0 degrees front), and Right (interferer 90 degrees right, target 0 degrees front). Children had higher SRTs and greater masking than adults. When spatial cues were not available, adults, but not children, were able to use differences in interferer type to separate the target from the interferer. Both children and adults showed SRM. Children, unlike adults, demonstrated large amounts of SRM for a time-reversed speech interferer. In conclusion, masking and SRM vary with the type of interfering sound, and this variation interacts with age; SRM may not depend on the spectral peculiarities of a particular type of voice when the target speech and interfering speech are different sex talkers.

Acoustic Stimulation↗