Age-related language performance and device use in children with very early bilateral cochlear implantation

Impact of auditory environments on language outcomes in children with a cochlear implant

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the effects of auditory environments on receptive and expressive language outcomes in children with a CI.

DESIGN

A single-institution retrospective review was performed. The auditory environments included Speech-Noise, Speech-Quiet, Quiet, Music, and Noise. Hearing Hour Percentage (HHP) and percent total hours were calculated for each environment. Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analyses were used to study the effects of auditory environments on PLS Receptive and Expressive scores.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty-nine children with CI.

RESULTS

On GLMM, an increase in Quiet HHP and Quiet percent total hours were positively associated with PLS Receptive scores. Speech-Quiet, Quiet, and Music HHP were positively associated with PLS Expressive scores, with only Quiet being significant for percent total hours. In contrast, percent total hours of Speech-Noise and Noise had a significant negative association with PLS Expressive scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that more time spent in a quiet auditory environment positively influences PLS Receptive and Expressive scores and that more time listening to speech in quiet and music positively influences PLS Expressive scores. Time spent in environments recognised as Speech-Noise and Noise might negatively impact a child's expressive language outcomes with a CI. Future research is needed to better understand this association.

Factors affecting consonant production accuracy in children with cochlear implants: Expressive vocabulary and maternal education

BACKGROUND

Despite the ability of cochlear implants (CIs) to provide children with access to speech, there is considerable variability in spoken language outcomes. Research aimed at identifying factors influencing speech production accuracy is needed.

AIMS

To characterize the consonant production accuracy of children with cochlear implants (CWCI) and an age-matched group of children with typical hearing (CWTH) and to explore several factors that potentially affect the ability of both groups to accurately produce consonants.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

We administered the Bankson-Bernthal Test of Phonology (BBTOP) to a group of 25 CWCI (mean age = 4;9, SD = 1;6, range = 3;2-8;5) implanted prior to 30 months of age with a mean duration of implant usage of 3;6 and an age-matched group of 25 CWTH (mean age = 5;0, SD = 1;6, range = 3;1-8;6). The recorded results were transcribed, and the accuracy of the target consonants was determined. Expressive vocabulary size estimates were obtained from a language sample using the number of different words (NDW). A parent questionnaire provided information about maternal education, duration of CIs experience and other demographic characteristics of each child.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The CWCI group demonstrated some similarities to, and some differences from, their hearing peers. The CWCI demonstrated poorer consonant production accuracy overall and in various phonetic categories and word positions. However, both groups produced initial consonants more accurately than final consonants. Whilst CWCI had poorer production accuracy than CWTH for all phonetic categories (stops, nasals, fricatives, affricates, liquids and glides and consonant clusters), both groups exhibited similar error patterns across categories. For CWCI, the factors most related to consonant production accuracy when considered individually were expressive vocabulary size, followed by duration of CI experience, chronological age, maternal education and gender. The combination of maternal education and vocabulary size resulted in the best model of consonant production accuracy for this group. For the CWTH, chronological age followed by vocabulary size were most related to consonant production accuracy. No combination of factors yielded an improved model for the CWTH.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Whilst group differences in production accuracy between the CWCI and CWTH were found, the pattern of errors was similar for the two groups of children, suggesting that the children are at earlier stages of overall consonant production development. Although duration of CI experience was a significant covariate in a single-variable model of consonant production accuracy for CWCI, the best multivariate model of consonant production accuracy for these children was based on the combination of expressive vocabulary size and maternal education.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Research has shown that a range of factors is associated with consonant production accuracy by CWCIs, including factors such as the age at implant, duration of implant use, gender, other language skills and maternal education. Despite numerous studies that have examined speech sound production in these children, most have explored a limited number of factors that might explain the variability in scores obtained. Research that examines the potential role of a range of child-related and environmental factors in the same children is needed to determine the predictive role of these factors in speech production outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge Whilst the consonant production accuracy was lower for the CWCIs than for their typically hearing peers, there were some similarities suggesting that these children are experiencing similar, but delayed, acquisition of consonant production skills to that of their hearing peers. Whilst several factors are predictive of consonant production accuracy in children with implants, vocabulary diversity and maternal education, an indirect measure of socio-economic status, were the best combined predictors of consonant production accuracy. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Understanding the factors that shape individual differences in CWCI speech production is important for effective clinical decision-making and intervention planning. The present findings point to two potentially important factors related to speech sound production beyond the duration of robust hearing in CWCI, namely, a lexical diversity and maternal education. This suggests that intervention is likely most efficient that addresses both vocabulary development and speech sound development together. The current findings further suggest the importance of parental involvement and commitment to spoken language development and the importance of receiving early and consistent intervention aimed both at skill development and parental efficacy.

Cochlear Implantation and Educational and Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Adolescence

Importance

Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to be effective in improving auditory skills and speech and language development. However, less is known about the long-term outcomes of CIs on educational functioning or quality of life.

Objective

To evaluate long-term educational outcomes and quality of life in adolescents over 13 years postimplantation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal cohort study included 188 children with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss with CIs from the Childhood Development After Cochlear Implantation (CDaCI) study from hospital-based CI programs; a cohort of 340 children with severe to profound hearing loss without CIs from a nationally representative survey (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2; NLTS-2), and results from the literature of comparable children without CIs.

Exposure(s)

Cochlear implantation (early and late).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adolescent performance on measures of academic achievement (Woodcock Johnson), language (Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language), and quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Youth Quality of Life Instrument-Deaf and Hard of Hearing).

Results

The CDaCI cohort included 188 children, 136 of whom completed the wave 3 postimplantation follow-up visits (77 [55%] female) with CIs; mean [SD] age was 11.47 [1.27] years. The NLTS-2 cohort included 340 children (50% female) with severe to profound hearing loss without CIs. Children with CIs had better academic performance compared with children without CIs with similar levels of hearing loss. The largest benefits were seen for children who received implants early (prior to age 18 months), who performed at or above age and gender norms for language and academic achievement. Similarly, adolescents with CIs reported better quality of life on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory compared with children without CIs. On a condition-specific measure (Youth Quality of Life Instrument-Deaf and Hard of Hearing), children who received implants early scored higher across all 3 domains than comparisons without CIs.

Conclusions and Relevance

To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate long-term educational outcomes and quality of life in adolescents using CIs. This longitudinal cohort study showed better outcomes of CIs in terms of language, academic performance, and quality of life. While the greatest benefits were observed for children who received implants before age 18 months, benefits were also noted for children who received implants later, providing evidence that children with severe to profound hearing loss with CIs can achieve at or above expected levels compared with hearing peers.

Trends in Timing and Provision of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Care During COVID‐19

Objectives

To identify trends in timing of pediatric cochlear implant (CI) care during COVID-19.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort.

Setting

Tertiary care center.

Methods

Patients under 18 years of age who underwent CI between 1/1/2016 and 2/29/2020 were included in the pre-COVID-19 group, and patients implanted between 3/1/2020 and 12/31/2021 comprised the COVID-19 group. Revision and sequential surgeries were excluded. Time intervals between care milestones including severe-to-profound hearing loss diagnosis, initial CI candidacy evaluation, and surgery were compared among groups, as were the number and type of postoperative visits.

Results

A total of 98 patients met criteria; 70 were implanted pre-COVID-19 and 28 during COVID-19. A significant increase in the interval between CI candidacy evaluation and surgery was seen among patients with prelingual deafness during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 (µ = 47.3 weeks, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.8-59.9 vs µ = 20.5 weeks, 95% CI: 13.1-27.9; p < .001). Patients in the COVID-19 group attended fewer in-person rehabilitation visits in the 12 months after surgery (µ = 14.9 visits, 95% CI: 9.7-20.1 vs µ = 20.9, 95% CI: 18.1-23.7; p = .04). Average age at implantation in the COVID-19 group was 5.7 years (95% CI: 4.0-7.5) versus 3.7 years in the pre-COVID-19 group (95% CI: 2.9-4.6; p = .05). The time interval between hearing loss confirmation and CI surgery was on average 99.7 weeks for patients implanted during COVID-19 (95% CI: 48.8-150) versus 54.2 weeks for patients implanted pre-COVID (95% CI: 39.6-68.8), which was not a statistically significant difference (p = .1).

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 pandemic patients with prelingual deafness experienced delays in care relative to patients implanted before the pandemic.

Children with cochlear implant and additional disabilities benefit from consistent device use

OBJECTIVES

Although the prevalence of additional disabilities (AD) in children with a cochlear implant (CI) is high, children with such disabilities are often excluded from clinical studies, or their specific characteristics are only partially included. The literature shows that several factors need to be considered in evaluating auditory and language development in CI children with AD, including demographic variables as well as the severity and type of disability. Current findings on device use in children show correlations with auditory and language outcome, but little is known about device use specifically in children with AD. The purpose of this study was to determine the auditory and language outcome of CI children with AD and to analyse their datalogging-based daily device use, both 1 year and 2 years after implantation. In addition, any potential correlations between outcome and device use were to be identified.

METHODS

A cohort of 32 CI children with 5 different types of AD were included in this retrospective analysis. The children's auditory and language outcome was assessed by the parental questionnaires LittlEARS and ELFRA and by the professional observation tool CAP (Categories of Auditory Performance) 1 and 2 years after implantation. Longitudinal device use was analysed by using the CI system-integrated data-logging; daily duration of CI use, number of coil disconnections and exposure to different listening scenes were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, the cohort's auditory and language performance showed significant progress over time, while reduced abilities became more obvious after 2 years of CI experience. The mean daily duration of CI use increased significantly from 7.8 ± 2.8 to 8.2 ± 2.7 h after 2 years. High numbers of daily coil disconnections were detected, with a significant mean decrease from 83.4 ± 73.1 to 66.3 ± 54.6 whereas the percentage exposure to different listening environments was widely stable over time. Significant rank correlations were identified between outcomes measured by ELFRA and CAP with daily duration of CI use, numbers of coil disconnections and percentage of exposure to speech-characterised listening scenes.

CONCLUSION

The auditory and language outcome in CI children with AD is variable, but it progresses over time. Children benefit from a consistent daily device use as well as from a high exposure to speech-characterised environments. Device use should be monitored constantly, with particular focus on daily duration of CI use and, in particular, on the number of coil disconnections if children have a severe motor impairment. Objective data-logging is an important addition to outcome assessment by testing, observations and parental questionnaires. Although assessment in children with AD is a major challenge for professionals, comprehensive assessment is needed to improve cochlear implant services with special adaption to children with AD, and this should include audiological, development-related and psychosocial information. A unified system to classify types of disabilities could help to improve procedures for analysing different outcomes.

[Word production in children with cochlear implant based on chronological age and hearing age]

BACKGROUND

For congenitally deaf children, an early bilateral provision with cochlear implant (CI) is a favourable condition for language acquisition. The objective of the present study was to determine the word production in CI children. The focus was on a comparison of chronological age and hearing age performance and on the evaluation of potential effects of multilingualism, additional disabilities and age at provision.

METHODS

The data of 62 children with bilateral CI (age at provision in months M=12,1; SD=6,2) were retrospectively analysed. Vocabulary was assessed by the test Aktiver Wortschatztest für 3- bis 5-jährige Kinder - Revision and compared for chronological age and hearing age. Group comparisons and correlation analysis was conducted regarding multilingualism, additional disabilities and age at provision.

RESULTS

The cohort performed significantly better when referenced to hearing age: level were within or above the norm in more than 50%; referenced to chronological age in around 37%. The descriptive performance differences for multilingualism and additional disabilities were only significant for children with both characteristics. Performance of monolingual children without additional disabilities was not significantly associated with age at provision.

CONCLUSION

CI children may achieve an adequate expressive vocabulary at the age of 3 to 5 years. Multilingualism and additional disabilities seem to be particular challenges for CI children and need a more precise definition in further studies. The use of both chronological and hearing age as reference marks allows a differentiated assessment of the language status. This may lead to benefits in therapeutic interventions and parent councelling.

Long-Term Device Satisfaction and Safety after Cochlear Implantation in Children

(1) Objectives: For full benefit in children implanted with a cochlear implant (CI), wearing the device all waking hours is necessary. This study focuses on the relationship between daily use and audiological outcomes, with the hypothesis that frequent daily device use coincides with high device satisfaction resulting in better functional gain (FG). Confounding factors such as implantation age, device experience and type of device were considered. (2) Results: Thirty-eight CI children (65 ears) were investigated. In total, 76.92% of the children were using their device for >12 h per day (h/d), 18.46% for 9−12 h/d, the remaining for 6−9 h/d and one subject reported 3 h/d. The revision rate up to the 90-month follow-up (F/U) was 4.6%. The mean FG was 59.00 ± 7.67 dB. The Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) separated for single unit (SU) versus behind the ear (BTE) devices showed significantly better results for the latter in terms of wearing comfort (WC) (p = 0.00062). A correlation between device use and FG was found with a device experience of <2 years (n = 29; r2 = 0.398), whereas no correlation was seen with ≥2 years of device experience (n = 36; r2 = 0.0038). (3) Conclusion: This study found significant relationships between daily device use and FG, wearing comfort and long-term safety (90 months).

Development and Validation of a Parenting Stress Module for Parents of Children Using Cochlear Implants

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a cochlear implant (CI)-specific parenting stress measure using the FDA Guidance on Patient-Reported Outcomes (2009).

METHODS

The development and psychometric validation of the Parenting Stress-CI module for both the Early Childhood (EC; 0-5 years) and School-Age (SA; 6-12 years) versions are reported in this article. Instrument development consisted of qualitative interviews with parents of children with CIs (EC: N = 19; SA: N = 21), content analysis, item development, and cognitive testing of the instrument. Last, we conducted the psychometric validation (EC: N = 72; SA: N = 64), including analyses of internal consistency, test-retest reliability (∼2 weeks between administrations; N = 24), and convergent validity with the Parenting Stress Index-4 (PSI-4).

RESULTS

The final EC version includes 15 questions, and the SA version includes 8 questions. Both the EC and SA versions had strong reliability (EC α = .88; SA α = .85), with all items significantly correlated with the overall module (r = .43-.80). Both versions also had strong test-retest reliability (r = .99, p < .001). Last, analyses of convergent validity demonstrated significant correlations with the PSI-4 Total Stress scale for both Parenting Stress-CI versions (EC r = .66, p < .00; SA r = .45, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Parenting Stress-CI modules are reliable and valid condition-specific parenting stress instruments for parents of children with CIs ages 0-12 years, filling a significant gap in the literature. These fully validated instruments can be used to assess parental needs for support and guide the development of targeted, family centered interventions.