Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(09): 835-846
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17051
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Impact of Consistency in Daily Device Use on Speech Perception Abilities in Children with Cochlear Implants: Datalogging Evidence

Vijayalakshmi Easwar
*   Archie’s Cochlear Implant Laboratory, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
†   Collaborative Program in Neuroscience, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
,
Joseph Sanfilippo
*   Archie’s Cochlear Implant Laboratory, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
,
Blake Papsin
†   Collaborative Program in Neuroscience, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
§   Otolaryngology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
,
Karen Gordon
*   Archie’s Cochlear Implant Laboratory, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
‡   Otolaryngology, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Cochlear implants (CIs) give children with severe to profound hearing loss access to sound. There appears to be a dose effect of sound exposure on speech perception abilities as shown by the positive influence of early implantation and CI experience. The consistency in device use per day could also affect sound dose, potentially affecting perceptual abilities in children with CIs.

Purpose:

The objectives of the present study were to identify the impact of consistency in device use on: (1) speech perception abilities and (2) asymmetry in speech perception abilities between bilateral CIs.

Research Design:

Retrospective analysis.

Study Sample:

To achieve the first objective, data from 65 children (age range at speech test: 1.91–18.05 yrs) with one (unilaterally implanted or bimodal) or two CIs (sequentially or simultaneously implanted) were included. A subset of data from 40 children with bilateral CIs was included to achieve the second objective. Of the 40 children with two CIs, 15 received their CIs sequentially.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Device use information was extracted from datalogs stored in personal speech processors using custom software. Speech perception scores per CI collected in quiet were also evaluated. Multiple regression was used to assess the impact of daily CI use, while controlling for factors previously identified to affect speech perception: age at speech test, length of pre-CI (acoustic) hearing experience, length of CI hearing experience, and order of CI for the first objective, and CI category (simultaneous/sequential implantation), interimplant delay, and length of CI experience for the second objective.

Results:

On average, children wore their CIs for 11.59 ± 2.86 hours/day and, with one CI, exhibited 65.07 ± 22.64% accuracy on speech perception tests. Higher monaural speech perception scores were associated with longer everyday CI use and CI experience (p < 0.05). Among children with bilateral CIs, those with simultaneously implanted CIs and similar bilateral hearing experience demonstrated a small but significant right ear advantage with higher speech perception scores when using the right rather than left CI (mean difference = 4.55 ± 9.83%). The asymmetry in speech perception between CIs was larger and more variable in children who received their CIs sequentially (mean difference CI1-CI2 = 27.48 ± 24.87%). These asymmetries decreased with longer/consistent everyday use of the newer CI (p < 0.05). Yet, despite consistent everyday device use of the second CI (>12 hours/day), only a small proportion of children implanted sequentially (one out of seven children) achieved symmetrical function similar to children with simultaneously received bilateral CIs.

Conclusions:

Consistent everyday CI use contributes to higher speech perception scores. Although consistent CI use can help reduce the asymmetry in speech perception abilities of children with sequentially implanted CIs subsequent to interimplant delay, residual asymmetry often persists.

This project was supported by Restracomp fellowship awarded to Vijayalakshmi Easwar and Canadian Institute for Health Research awarded to Karen Gordon.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Archbold SM, Nikolopoulos TP, Lloyd-Richmond H. 2009; Long-term use of cochlear implant systems in paediatric recipients and factors contributing to non-use. Cochlear Implants Int 10 (01) 25-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH, Birenbaum B, Babb J, Waltzman SB, Roehm PC. 2011; The effects of cochlear implantation on speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 59 (03) 446-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chadha NK, Papsin BC, Jiwani S, Gordon KA. 2011; Speech detection in noise and spatial unmasking in children with simultaneous versus sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 32 (07) 1057-1064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dowell RC, Dettman SJ, Blamey PJ, Barker EJ, Clark GM. 2002; Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes. Cochlear Implants Int 3 (01) 1-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Easwar V, Sanfilippo J, Papsin B, Gordon K. 2016; Factors affecting daily cochlear implant use in children: datalogging evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (10) 824-838
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Easwar V, Yamazaki H, Deighton M, Papsin B, Gordon K. 2017; Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants: developmental advances do not yet achieve normal cortical processing. Brain Behav 7 (04) e00638-e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Field AP, Babbie ER, Field Z. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage Publishers;
    Google Scholar
  • Fitzgerald MB, Green JE, Fang Y, Waltzman SB. 2013; Factors influencing consistent device use in pediatric recipients of bilateral cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 14 (05) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Friedmann DR, Green J, Fang Y, Ensor K, Roland JT, Waltzman SB. 2015; Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in the adolescent population. Laryngoscope 125 (08) 1952-1958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Galvin KL, Hughes KC. 2012; Adapting to bilateral cochlear implants: early post-operative device use by children receiving sequential or simultaneous implants at or before 3.5 years. Cochlear Implants Int 13 (02) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Galvin KL, Mok M, Dowell RC. 2007; Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear 28 (04) 470-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Galvin KL, Mok M, Dowell RC, Briggs RJ. 2008; Speech detection and localization results and clinical outcomes for children receiving sequential bilateral cochlear implants before four years of age. Int J Audiol 47 (10) 636-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geers A, Brenner C, Davidson L. 2003; Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear Hear 24 (01) (Suppl) 24S-35S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geers AE. 2002; Factors affecting the development of speech, language, and literacy in children with early cochlear implantation. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 33 (03) 172-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geffen G, Quinn K. 1984; Hemispheric specialization and ear advantages in processing speech. Psychol Bull 96 (02) 273-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Papsin BC. 2009; Benefits of short interimplant delays in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 30 (03) 319-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Deighton MR, Abbasalipour P, Papsin BC. 2014; Perception of binaural cues develops in children who are deaf through bilateral cochlear implantation. PLoS One 9 (12) e114841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon K, Henkin Y, Kral A. 2015; Asymmetric hearing during development: the aural preference syndrome and treatment options. Pediatrics 136 (01) 141-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. 2003; Activity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants. Ear Hear 24 (06) 485-500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Salloum C, Toor GS, van Hoesel R, Papsin BC. 2012; Binaural interactions develop in the auditory brainstem of children who are deaf: effects of place and level of bilateral electrical stimulation. J Neurosci 32 (12) 4212-4223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Wong DD, Papsin BC. 2013; Bilateral input protects the cortex from unilaterally-driven reorganization in children who are deaf. Brain 136 Pt 5 1609-1625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Wong DD, Valero J, Jewell SF, Yoo P, Papsin BC. 2011; Use it or lose it? Lessons learned from the developing brains of children who are deaf and use cochlear implants to hear. Brain Topogr 24 3–4 204-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Harrison RV, Gordon KA, Mount RJ. 2005; Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation. Dev Psychobiol 46 (03) 252-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Henkin Y, Swead RT, Roth DA, Kishon-Rabin L, Shapira Y, Migirov L, Hildesheimer M, Kaplan-Neeman R. 2014; Evidence for a right cochlear implant advantage in simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 124 (08) 1937-1941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Henkin Y, Taitelbaum-Swead R, Hildesheimer M, Migirov L, Kronenberg J, Kishon-Rabin L. 2008; Is there a right cochlear implant advantage?. Otol Neurotol 29 (04) 489-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Illg A, Giourgas A, Kral A, Büchner A, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T. 2013; Speech comprehension in children and adolescents after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation with long interimplant interval. Otol Neurotol 34 (04) 682-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jiwani S, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. 2013; Central auditory development after long-term cochlear implant use. Clin Neurophysiol 124 (09) 1868-1880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jiwani S, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. 2016; Early unilateral cochlear implantation promotes mature cortical asymmetries in adolescents who are deaf. Hum Brain Mapp 37 (01) 135-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kim J-S, Kim L-S, Jeong S-W. 2013; Functional benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children with long inter-stage interval between two implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77 (02) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kimura D. 1967; Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex 3: 163-178
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kocdor P, Iseli CE, Teagle HF, Woodard J, Park L, Zdanski CJ, Brown KD, Adunka OF, Buchman CA. 2016; The effect of interdevice interval on speech perception performance among bilateral, pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Laryngoscope 126 (10) 2389-2394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Manrique M, Huarte A, Valdivieso A, Pérez B. 2009; Bilateral sequential implantation in children. Audiol Med 5: 224-231
    Google Scholar
  • Marnane V, Ching TYC. 2015; Hearing aid and cochlear implant use in children with hearing loss at three years of age: Predictors of use and predictors of changes in use. Int J Audiol 54 (08) 544-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McDermott EE, Smart JL, Boiano JA, Bragg LE, Colon TN, Hanson EM, Emanuel DC, Kelly AS. 2016; Assessing auditory processing abilities in typically developing school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (02) 72-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Morris LG, Mallur PS, Roland Jr JT, Waltzman SB, Lalwani AK. 2007; Implication of central asymmetry in speech processing on selecting the ear for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 28 (01) 25-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Murray MR, Richards SJ. 1978; A right-ear advantage in monotic shadowing. Acta Psychol (Amst) 42: 495-504
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Myhrum M, Strøm-Roum H, Heldahl MG, Rødvik AK, Eksveen B, Landsvik B, Rasmussen K, Tvete OE. 2017; Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: outcome of the second implant and long-term use. Ear Hear 38: 301-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Özdemir S, Tuncer Ü, Tarkan Ö, Kıroğlu M, Çetik F, Akar F. 2013; Factors contributing to limited or non-use in the cochlear implant systems in children: 11 years experience. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77 (03) 407-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Peters BR, Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Lake J. 2007; Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 28 (05) 649-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Quittner AL, Steck JT. 1991; Predictors of cochlear implant use in children. Am J Otol 12 (Suppl) 89-94
    Google Scholar
  • Ramsden JD, Gordon K, Aschendorff A, Borucki L, Bunne M, Burdo S, Garabedian N, Grolman W, Irving R, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Loundon N, Manrique M, Martin J, Raine C, Wouters J, Papsin BC. 2012; European bilateral pediatric cochlear implant forum consensus statement. Otol Neurotol 33 (04) 561-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sarant JZ, Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Clark GM, Gibson WP. 2001; Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 22 (01) 18-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Scherf F, Van Deun L, van Wieringen A. 2009; Three-year postimplantation auditory outcomes in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 118 (05) 336-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sparreboom M, Beynon AJ, Snik AFM, Mylanus EA. 2016; The effect of device use after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: an electrophysiological approach. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 86: 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sparreboom M, Leeuw AR, Snik AFM, Mylanus EA. 2012; Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: parents’ perspective and device use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76 (03) 339-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Strøm-Roum H, Laurent C, Wie OB. 2012; Comparison of bilateral and unilateral cochlear implants in children with sequential surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76 (01) 95-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Walker EA, Spratford M, Moeller MP, McCreery RW, Oleson JJ, Van Buren J, Bentler R, Roush P. 2013; Predictors of hearing aid use time in children with mild-to-severe hearing loss. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 44 (01) 73-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, Baker S, Caraway T, Kasulis H, Mears A, Smith J, Swim L, Wood M. 2007; 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 28 (05) 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar