AUDITORY PERFORMANCE AND SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY RESULTS IN CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Year 2003, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 20 - 26, 03.12.2016

Ayça Ciprut Sezer Kulekci Sengül Terlemez Ferda Akdaş

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate auditory performance and speech perception of congenitally deaf children after implantation.
Methods: The study consisted of 24 prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants (Cl). Auditory performance and speech intelligibility after cochlear implantation were assessed using two scales: Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) and the Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP).
Results: The auditory performance and speech intelligibility of all children increased after implantation. CAP and SIR results of the children who were implanted before the age of four, who used hearing aids before implantation and who had strong family support were superior to the group of children implanted after the age of 4, who did not used hearing aids and who did not have family support.
Conclusion: All children participated to the study benefited from cochlear implant in terms of increase of auditory performance. As the time of Cl usage increases, speech intelligibility also increases. Intelligibility becomes significant by the end of third year of Cl use. Strong family support, use of Cl and early implant age are found to be important for succes with Cl.
Key Words: Cochlear implant, Speech intelligibility, Auditory Performance, Children

References

• Qantz BJ, Tye Murray H, Tyler RS. Word recognition performance with single-channel and multichannel cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1989;10:91-94.
• Staller SJ, Beiter AL, Bimacombe MA, et al. Pediatric performance with the nucleus 22- channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol 1991; !2(Suppl): 126-137.
• Dawson PW, Blamy PJ, Rowland LC, et al. Cochlear implants in children, adolescents and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:401 - 417.
• Waltzman SB, Cohen HL, Shapiro WH. Use of multichannel cochlear implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population. Laryngoscope 1992; 102:395-399.
• Qantz BJ, Tyler RS, Woodworth GG, et al. Results of multichannel cochlear Implants in congenital and acquired prelingual deafness
• in children: five year follow-up. Am J Otol 1994,15 (Suppl 2): 1-7.
• Uziel /IS, Reuillard-Artieres F, Sillon M, et al. Speech perception performance in prelingually deafened French children using the nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1996,17:559-568.
• Zwolan TA, Zimmerman-Philips S, Ashbaugh CJ, et ai Cohlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills. Ear Hear 1997,18:240-251.
• O'Donoghue 014, Hikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, et al. Speech perception in children following cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1998;19:762-767.
• Hikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, O'Donoghue 014, et al. The development of auditory perception in children following cochlear implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1999,49 (Suppl I): 189-191.
• O'Donoghue G14, Hikolopoulos TP, Arch bold SI4, et al. Cochlear implants in youg children: the relationship between speech perception and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear 1999;20:419-425.
• Cohen HL, Waltzman SB, Roland TJ, et al. Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans Affairs cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1997; 18:462- 465.
• Waltzman SB, Cohen HL, Gomolin RH, et al. Open-set speech perception in congenitally deaf children using cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997;18:342-349.
• Battmer RD, Gupta SP, Allum-Mecklenberg DJ, et al. Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ¡995,104 (Suppl 166): 185-187.
• Dowell RC, Blarney PJ, Clark GI4. Potential and limitations of cochlear implants in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;104(Suppl 166):324-327.
• Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler R, Re I say D, et al. Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and lenght of device use. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40:183-199.
• Pyman B, Blarney P, Lacy P, et al. The development of speech perception in children using cochlear implants: effects of étiologie factors and delayed milestones. Am J Otol 2000;21:57-61.
• Archbold SI4, Lutman 14E, Marshall DH. Categories of auditory performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995,166 (Suppl):312-314.
• Archbold SM, Lutman ME, O'Donoghue GM. Categories of auditory performance: inter-user reliability. Br J Audiol 1998;32:7-12.
• Vidas S, Hassan R, Parties LS. Real life performance considerations of four pediatric multi-channel implant patients. J Otolaryngol 1992;21:387-393.
• Osberger MJ, Fisher LJ, Zimmerman-Philips S, et al. Speech recognition performance of older children with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1998;19:152-157.
• Allen MC, Hikolopoulos TP, O'Donoghue GM. Speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1998; 19:742-746.
• Tyler RS, Fryauf-Bertshy H, Relsay DMR, et al. Speech perception by prelingually deaf children using cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Heck Surg 1997,1 1 7:180-187.
• Beiter AL, Staller SJ, Dowell RC. Evaluation and device programming in children. Ear Hear 1991 ; 12(Suppl):25S-33S.
• Quittner A, Steck JT. Predictors of cochlear implant use in children. Am J Otol 1991,12 (suppl):89-94.
• Somers M, Speech perception abilities in children with cochlear implants or hearing aids. Am J Otol 1991 ; 12(Suppl): 174-178.