scholarly journals Cochlear Implants and Children with Vestibular Impairments

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (03) ◽  
pp. 305-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake Papsin ◽  
Sharon Cushing
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sensory Deficit ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Vestibular Loss ◽  
Acquired Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech And Language Development ◽  
The Impact

AbstractSensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in children occurs in 1 to 3% of live births and acquired hearing loss can additionally occur. This sensory deficit has far reaching consequences that have been shown to extend beyond speech and language development. Thankfully there are many therapeutic options that exist for these children with the aim of decreasing the morbidity of their hearing impairment. Of late, focus has shifted beyond speech and language outcomes to the overall performance of children with SNHL in real-world environments. To account for their residual deficits in such environments, clinicians must understand the extent of their sensory impairments. SNHL commonly coexists with other sensory deficits such as vestibular loss. Vestibular impairment is exceedingly common in children with SNHL with nearly half of children exhibiting vestibular end-organ dysfunction. These deficits naturally lead to impairments in balance and delay in motor milestones. However, this additional sensory deficit likely leads to further impairment in the performance of these children. This article focuses on the following:1. Defining the coexistence of vestibular impairment in children with SNHL and cochlear implants.2. Describing screening methods aimed at identifying vestibular dysfunction in children with SNHL.3. Understanding the functional implications of this dual-sensory impairment.4. Exploring possible rehabilitative strategies to minimize the impact of vestibular impairment in children with SNHL

Language Outcomes in Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Vila ◽  
Judith E. C. Lieu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Speech And Language Development ◽  
The Impact

Unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children is only recently beginning to be widely appreciated as having a negative impact. We now understand that simply having one normal-hearing ear may not be sufficient for typical child development, and leads to impairments in speech and language outcomes. Unfortunately, UHL is not a rare problem among children in the United States, and is present among more than 1 out of every 10 of adolescents in this country. How UHL specifically affects development of speech and language, however, is currently not well understood. While we know that children with UHL are more likely than their normal-hearing siblings to have speech therapy and individualized education plans at school, we do not yet understand the mechanism through which UHL causes speech and language problems. The objective of this review is to describe what is currently known about the impact of UHL on speech and language development in children. Furthermore, we discuss some of the potential pathways through which the impact of unilateral hearing loss on speech and language might be mediated.

Speech and Language Consequences of Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Anne ◽  
Judith E. C. Lieu ◽  
Michael S. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
The Impact

Objective Unilateral hearing loss has been shown to have negative consequences for speech and language development in children. The objective of this study was to systematically review the current literature to quantify the impact of unilateral hearing loss on children, with the use of objective measures of speech and language. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2015. Manual searches of references were also completed. Review Methods All studies that described speech and language outcomes for children with unilateral hearing loss were included. Outcome measures included results from any test of speech and language that evaluated or had age-standardized norms. Due to heterogeneity of the data, quantitative analysis could not be completed. Qualitative analysis was performed on the included studies. Two independent evaluators reviewed each abstract and article. Results A total of 429 studies were identified; 13 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Overall, 7 studies showed poorer scores on various speech and language tests, with effects more pronounced for children with severe to profound hearing loss. Four studies did not demonstrate any difference in testing results between patients with unilateral hearing loss and those with normal hearing. Two studies that evaluated effects on speech and language longitudinally showed initial speech problems, with improvement in scores over time. Conclusions There are inconsistent data regarding effects of unilateral hearing loss on speech and language outcomes for children. The majority of recent studies suggest poorer speech and language testing results, especially for patients with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss.

scholarly journals Survey of Hearing Aid Conditions for Hearing Impaired Persons While Driving

2020 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Ikeda ◽  
Shigeyuki Minami
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Safe Driving ◽  
Actual Usage ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Acquired Hearing Loss ◽  
The Impact

Hearing impaired persons are required to drive with hearing aids to supplement their hearing ability, however, there has not been sufficient discussion regarding the impact of the use of a hearing aid on driving a vehicle. In order to investigate the actual usage and driving conditions of using hearing aids while driving a vehicle, this paper uses a questionnaire to survey (1) how easy it is to drive when wearing hearing aids, and (2) how often hearing aids are not worn while driving. Concerning the ease of driving when wearing a hearing aid, it was suggested that people with congenital hearing loss were more likely to rely on visual information, and those with acquired hearing loss continue to use their experience of hearing. When the level of disability is high, it is difficult to drive when using the hearing aid, and when the disability level is low, it is easier to drive. Regarding the frequency of driving without wearing hearing aids, about 60 % of respondents had such an experience. Those who often drive without hearing aids had experienced headaches due to noise from wearing hearing aids compared to those who wear hearing aids at all times. Hearing aids are necessary assistive devices for hearing impaired persons to obtain hearing information, and to provide a safe driving environment. Therefore, this paper addresses issues to maintain a comfortable driving environment while wearing a hearing aid.

Does Access to Visual Input Inhibit Auditory Development for Children With Cochlear Implants? A Review of the Evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 10-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jena McDaniel ◽  
Stephen Camarata
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sensory Deprivation ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Visual Input ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Auditory Development ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Multisensory Input

Purpose We review the evidence for attenuating visual input during intervention to enhance auditory development and ultimately improve spoken language outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Background Isolating the auditory sense is a long-standing tradition in many approaches for teaching children with hearing loss. However, the evidence base for this practice is surprisingly limited and not straightforward. We review four bodies of evidence that inform whether or not visual input inhibits auditory development in children with cochlear implants: (a) audiovisual benefits for speech perception and understanding for individuals with typical hearing, (b) audiovisual integration development in children with typical hearing, (c) sensory deprivation and neural plasticity, and (d) audiovisual processing in individuals with hearing loss. Conclusions Although there is a compelling theoretical rationale for reducing visual input to enhance auditory development, there is also a strong theoretical argument supporting simultaneous multisensory auditory and visual input to potentially enhance outcomes in children with hearing loss. Despite widespread and long-standing practice recommendations to limit visual input, there is a paucity of evidence supporting this recommendation and no evidence that simultaneous multisensory input is deleterious to children with cochlear implants. These findings have important implications for optimizing spoken language outcomes in children with cochlear implants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document