Speech perception of children using Nucleus, Clarion or Med-El cochlear implants

被引:26
作者
Taitelbaum-Swead, R [1 ]
Kishon-Rabin, L
Kaplan-Neeman, R
Muchnik, C
Kronenberg, J
Hildesheimer, M
机构
[1] Tel Aviv Univ, Dept Commun Disorders, Sackler Fac Med, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Chaim Sheba Med Ctr, Speech & Hearing Ctr, IL-52621 Tel Hashomer, Israel
[3] Chaim Sheba Med Ctr, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, IL-52621 Tel Hashomer, Israel
关键词
cochlear implants; performance; prelingual hearing-impaired children; speech perception; age at implantation; mode of communication;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.05.002
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Objective: The purpose of this study was to present speech perception achievements of implanted children using commercially available cochlear implant devices: Nucleus, Clarion or Med-El. Study design: A retrospective analysis. Methods: Speech perception data of 96 hearing-impaired children: 27 with Clarion, 49 with Nucleus and 20 with Med-El were collected. Speech tests included the Hebrew Infant Toddlers Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (HIT-MAIS) for the infants, the Hebrew Early Speech Perception (HESP) closed-set word-identification test and Hebrew Arthur Boothroyd (HAB) open-set one-syllable word recognition test were used for the older children. Results: I HIT-MAIS: (1) infants showed similar rate of progress, regardless of device. (2) Children implanted under two years of age reached performance within normal. development on this test. 11 HAB: (1) Most children achieved open set results with mean HAB between 40 and 50%, within 1-1.5 years post implantation. (2) Linear regression analyses revealed no statistical differences between the Clarion the Nucleus and the Med-El devices on the mean final measurement of this test. (3) Age of implantation and mode of communication were significant covariate variables: (a) the younger the child is implanted the better the results and (b) oral communication prior to implantation results in better performance than sign language. Conclusions: There are no apparent differences in speech perception performance between implant devices when considering background variables. The data have important implications on the rehabilitation process of hearing impaired children with cochlear implants in relation to device selection, age at implantation and mode of communication prior to implantation. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1675 / 1683
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Battmer R.-D., 1995, Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology, V104, P251
[2]   Performance in quiet and in noise with the Nucleus(R) Spectra 22 and the clarion CIS/CA cochlear implant devices [J].
Battmer, RD ;
Reid, JM ;
Lenarz, T .
SCANDINAVIAN AUDIOLOGY, 1997, 26 (04) :240-246
[3]  
DOWELL RC, 1997, P 16 WORLD C COCHL I
[4]   Outcome of cochlear implantation at different ages from 0 to 6 years [J].
Govaerts, PJ ;
De Beukelaer, C ;
Daemers, K ;
De Ceulaer, G ;
Yperman, M ;
Somers, T ;
Schatteman, I ;
Offeciers, FE .
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2002, 23 (06) :885-890
[5]   Cochlear implantation for progressive hearing loss [J].
Gray, RF ;
Jones, SEM ;
Court, I .
ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD, 2003, 88 (08) :708-711
[6]  
KISHONRABIN L, 2003, 4 EUR INV M LOND UK
[7]   Intra- and intersubject comparison of cochlear implant systems using the Esprit and the Tempo plus behind-the-ear speech processor [J].
Kompis, M ;
Jenk, M ;
Vischer, MW ;
Seifert, E ;
Häusler, R .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2002, 41 (08) :555-562
[8]   Speech-processing strategies designed for children [J].
Loeb, GE .
OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 1997, 117 (03) :170-173
[9]   Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: Effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age [J].
Meyer, TA ;
Svirsky, MA ;
Kirk, KI ;
Miyamoto, RT .
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 1998, 41 (04) :846-858
[10]   Speech perception by children with the clarion (CIS) or nucleus 22 (SPEAK) cochlear implant or hearing aids [J].
Meyer, TA ;
Svirsky, MA .
ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY, 2000, 109 (12) :49-51