Assessment of Speech Perception Abilities in Cochlear Implant Children

Document Type : Original

Author

Audio-vestibular Unit, Department of Otolaryngology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.

Abstract

Introduction:
The ability to perceive speech is a key sign of language development and normal speech. The current study was designed to measure the speech perception abilities in children with cochlear implant both in subjective and objective manners
Materials and Methods:
The research has been reviewed and approved by Medical ethical Committee and Thai Clinical Trials registry Committee. Sixty children age range from five to eight years with a pre-lingual bilateral profound sensori-neural hearing loss, fitted with a cochlear implant for two years or more were included. They were divided into two equal groups {thirty children in each group}; group I with good progress in auditory training and language acquisition and group II with poor progress in auditory training and language acquisition. Speech perception abilities were evaluated subjectively via Speech perception tests and objectively by measuring cortical evoked potentials. The results of speech perception tests and cortical evoked potential were analyzed and correlated. 
Results:
There was a statically significant difference in the mean & SD of speech perception test results and the aided P1 latency, amplitude of cortical evoked potential between the two groups. There was negative correlation between P1 latency and speech perception tests and a positive correlation between P1 amplitude and speech perception tests in both groups.
Conclusions:
The cortical evoked potential is correlated with the speech perception ability which can help in objective prediction of speech perception abilities in CI children.
 

Keywords

References

  1. Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Martinez A S,Visser-Dumont L, Hammes Ganguly D, Still JF.  Studies in Pediatric Hearing Loss at the House Research Institute. Acad Audiol. 2012; 23 (6): 412–421.
  2. Saki N, Yadollahpour A, Moniri S, Karimi M, Bayat A, Abshirini H, et al. Investigating the impacts of cochlear implantation on the happiness and self-esteem of mothers of children with severe hearing loss. Int J Mental Health Addict 2017; 15:288-94.
  3. Campbell R, MacSweeney M, Woll B. Cochlear implantation (CI) for prelingual deafness: the relevance of studies of brain organization and the role of first language acquisition in considering outcome success. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:834.
  4. Burdo S, Razza S, Di Berardino F, Tognola G. Auditory cortical responses in patients with cochlear implants. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2006 ;26:69–77. PMid:16886849 PMCid:PMC2639983
  5. Marlene, B., Sheila M., Susan S., Richard S., (2005) Clinical Protocols for Hearing Instrument Fitting in the Desired Sensation Level Method Trends In Amplification VOLUME 9, 4, 2005
  6. Marlene P., Bagatto, Sheila T., Malandrino, Frances M. et al., (2011) The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol Amplif.15(1-2): 57–76.
  7. Munro KJ, Purdy SC, Ahmed S, Begum R, Dillon H. Obligatory cortical auditory evoked potential waveform detection and differentiation using a commercially available clinical system: HEARLab. Ear Hear. 2011; 32: 782-786.
  8. Jean S., Moog K., Stein M., (2008) Teaching Deaf Children to Talk. Contemporary Issues In Communication Science And Disorders.2008; 35: 133–142.
  9. Audiologic guidelines for the assessment of hearing in infants and young children (2012).
  10. Purdy SC, Katsch R, Dillon H, Storey L, Sharma M, Agung K (2005) Aided cortical auditory evoked potentials for hearing instrument evaluation in infants. Switzerland.
  11. Yeung KNK, Wong LLN (2007) Prediction of hearing thresholds: comparison of cortical evoked response audiometry and auditory steady state response audiometry techniques. Int J Audiol 46: 17-25.
  12. Musacchia G, Strait D, Kraus N (2008) Relationships between behavior, brainstem and cortical encoding of seen and heard speech in musicians and non-musicians. Hear Res 241: 34-42.
  13. Hall J (2006) Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
  14. Samira Anderson, A. and Nina K. (2010) Objective Neural Indices of Speech-in-Noise Perception. Trends Amplif.; 14(2): 73–83.
  15. Hendrik S., Melissa J., Keum-Shik H. (2014): Lateralization of music processing with noises in the auditory cortex: an fNIRS study Front. Behav. Neurosci. 
  16. Ponton W, Eggermont JJ, Don M, Waring MD, Kwong B., Maturation of the mismatch negativity: effects of profound deafness and cochlear implant use. Audiol Neurootol. 2000; 5: 167-85.
  17. Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;116: 1235-46.

 

 

Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 34, Issue 3
May and June 2022
Pages 155-161

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics