Background Auditory-processing deficits are common in children and adults who are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). These deficits are evident across multiple domains as exhibited by the results from subjective questionnaires from parents, teachers, and individuals with ASD and from behavioral auditory-processing testing. Purpose Few studies compare subjective and behavioral performance of adults and children diagnosed with ASD using commercially available tests of auditory processing. The primary goal of the present study is to compare the performance of adults and children with ASD to age-matched, neurotypical peers. The secondary goal is to examine the effect of age on auditory-processing performance in individuals with ASD relative to age-matched peers. Research Design A four-group, quasi-experimental design with repeated measures was used in this study. Study Sample Forty-two adults and children were separated into four groups of participants: (1) 10 children with ASD ages 14 years or younger; (2) 10 age-matched, neurotypical children; (3) 11 adolescents and young adults with ASD ages 16 years and older; and (4) 11 age-matched, neurotypical adolescents or young adults. Data Collection and Analysis Data from each participant were collected in one test session. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measures ANOVA, or nonparametric analyses. Effect sizes were calculated to compare performance between those with ASD and those who were neurotypical within each age group. Results Across all the questionnaires and the majority of the behavioral test measures, participants with ASD had significantly poorer ratings or auditory-processing performance than age-matched, neurotypical peers. Adults had more favorable performance than children on several of the test measures. Medium to large effect sizes corroborated the significant results. Conclusion Overall, the questionnaires and behavioral tests used in this study were sensitive to detecting auditory-processing differences between individuals diagnosed with ASD and those who are considered neurotypical. On most test measures, children performed more poorly than adults. The findings in this study support that both children and adults with ASD exhibit auditory-processing difficulties. Appropriate school and work accommodations will be necessary to ensure appropriate access to speech in challenging environments.

Purpose Meta-analyses were conducted to compare pre- to postoperative speech recognition improvements and postoperative scores after cochlear implantation in younger (< 60 years) and older (> 60 years) adults. Method Studies were identified with electronic databases and through manual search of the literature. In the primary analyses, effect sizes between pre- and postoperative scores for each age group were calculated using a formula appropriate for repeated-measures designs. Using the effect sizes, two separate meta-analyses using a random-effects restricted maximum likelihood model were conducted for experiments using word and sentence recognition stimuli in quiet. Secondary meta-analyses were conducted to examine average postimplant, percent correct word recognition, sentence recognition, and speech recognition in noise in studies that included both older and younger age groups. Traditional Hedges's g effect sizes were calculated between the two groups. Results For the primary analyses, experiments using word and sentence recognition stimuli yielded significant, large effect sizes for the younger and older adult cochlear implant recipients with no significant differences between the older and younger age groups. However, the secondary meta-analyses of postoperative scores suggested significant differences between age groups for stimuli in quiet and noise. Conclusions Although older and younger adults with implants achieve the same magnitude of pre- to postimplant speech recognition benefit in quiet, the overall postoperative speech recognition outcomes in quiet and noise are superior in younger over older adults. Strategies to mitigate these group differences are critical for ensuring optimal outcomes in elderly individuals who are candidates for cochlear implants.

No abstract

Background Cochlear implant qualifying criteria for adult patients with public insurance policies are stricter than the labeled manufacturer criteria. It remains unclear whether insurance payer status affects expedient access to implants for adult patients who could derive benefit from the devices. Purpose This study examined whether insurance payer status affected access to cochlear implant services and longitudinal speech-perception outcomes in adult cochlear implant recipients. Research Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Study Sample Sixty-eight data points were queried from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–Secure, Encrypted, Research Management and Evaluation Solution database which consists of 12,388 de-identified data points from adult and pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Data Analysis Linear mixed-effects models were used to determine whether insurance payer status affected expedient access to cochlear implants and whether payer status predicted longitudinal postoperative speech-perception scores in quiet and noise. Results Results from linear mixed-effects regression models indicated that insurance payer status was a significant predictor of behavioral speech-perception scores in quiet and in background noise, with patients with public insurance experiencing poorer outcomes. In addition, extended wait time to receive a cochlear implant was predicted to significantly decrease speech-perception outcomes for patients with public insurance. Conclusion This study documented patients covered by public health insurance wait longer to receive cochlear implants and experience poorer postoperative speech-perception outcomes. These results have important clinical implications regarding the cochlear implant candidacy criteria and intervention protocols.

Background: For children with hearing loss, the primary goal of hearing aids is to provide improved access to the auditory environment within the limits of hearing aid technology and the child’s auditory abilities. However, there are limited data examining aided speech recognition at very low (40 dBA) and low (50 dBA) presentation levels. Purpose: Due to the paucity of studies exploring aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss, the present study aimed to 1) compare aided speech recognition at different presentation levels between groups of children with normal hearing and hearing loss, 2) explore the effects of aided pure tone average (PTA) and aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) on aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss ranging in degree from mild to severe, and 3) evaluate the effect of increasing low-level gain on aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Research Design: In phase 1 of this study, a two-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate differences in speech recognition. In phase 2 of this study, a single-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the potential benefit of additional low-level hearing aid gain for low-level aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Study Sample: The first phase of the study included 27 school-age children with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss and 12 school-age children with normal hearing. The second phase included eight children with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Intervention: Prior to the study, children with hearing loss were fitted binaurally with digital hearing aids. Children in the second phase were fitted binaurally with digital study hearing aids and completed a trial period with two different gain settings: 1) gain required to match hearing aid output to prescriptive targets (i.e., primary program), and 2) a 6-dB increase in overall gain for low-level inputs relative to the primary program. In both phases of this study, real-ear verification measures were completed to ensure the hearing aid output matched prescriptive targets. Data Collection and Analysis: Phase 1 included monosyllabic word recognition and syllable-final plural recognition at three presentation levels (40, 50, and 60 dBA). Phase 2 compared speech recognition performance for the same test measures and presentation levels with two differing gain prescriptions. Results and Conclusions: In phase 1 of the study, aided speech recognition was significantly poorer in children with hearing loss at all presentation levels. Higher aided SII in the better ear (55 dB SPL input) was associated with higher CNC word recognition at a 40 dBA presentation level. In phase 2, increasing the hearing aid gain for low-level inputs provided a significant improvement in syllable-final plural recognition at very low-level inputs and resulted in a non-significant trend toward better monosyllabic word recognition at very low presentation levels. Additional research is needed to document the speech recognition difficulties children with hearing aids may experience with low-level speech in the real world as well as the potential benefit or detriment of providing additional low-level hearing aid gain