Predictor of Auditory Performance in Mandarin Chinese Children With Cochlear Implants

Abstract

Parental perspective survey demonstrated the level of auditory performance among 177 school-aged children with implant. Five factors were found to predict the auditory performance of these children, suggesting the recipient's participation in the environments, oral/aural communication mode, and without additional disabilities significantly contributing auditory performance. The parent's view of cochlear implantation provides not only an important value of children's function in real life but also as another outcome measure.

The effect of side of implantation on unilateral cochlear implant performance in patients with prelingual and postlingual sensorineural hearing loss: A systematic review

“…No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the critical appraisal. Two studies were prospective cohort studies, twelve were retrospective cohort studies, five were cross‐sectional studies and one was a case‐control study …”

“…Two studies included unilaterally and bilaterally implanted patients . After contacting the corresponding authors, outcome per side was not extractable in five studies . One study investigated electro‐physiologically measured syllable discrimination which did not correspond with our predefined inclusion of outcome measures .…”

“…One study investigated electro‐physiologically measured syllable discrimination which did not correspond with our predefined inclusion of outcome measures . All of the above resulted in a high DoE in thirteen studies and a low DoE in seven studies …”

Differential activity in Heschl's gyrus between deaf and hearing individuals is due to auditory deprivation rather than language modality

“…An explanation for this apparent paradox is that studies showing an effect of language modality in CI performance have typically failed to measure sign language proficiency in the children and their parents, or their outcome variables represent more strongly measurements of auditory speech performance, and not general language or sign language knowledge (e.g. O'Donoghue et al, 2000;Geers et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2011). Deaf children with hearing parents often do not receive good sign language input, which means that sign language proficiency in these children can be highly variable.…”

“…Nevertheless, some studies have identified language modality as a predictor of CI success, in which children who use communication methods that include exposure to sign language have poorer outcomes than those using exclusively oral communication (e.g. O'Donoghue et al, 2000;Geers, 2002;Wang et al, 2011). An explanation for this apparent paradox is that studies showing an effect of language modality in CI performance have typically failed to measure sign language proficiency in the children and their parents, or their outcome variables represent more strongly measurements of auditory speech performance, and not general language or sign language knowledge (e.g.…”