Quantification of Speech-in-Noise and Sound Localisation Abilities in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss and Comparison to Normal Hearing Peers

Reeder, Ruth M.; Cadieux, Jamie; Firszt, Jill B.

doi:10.1159/000380745

Cited by 81 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that informational masking is associated with an especially pronounced SRM in children with normal hearing (Johnstone & Litovsky 2006; Misurelli & Litovsky 2015), and initial data are consistent with the idea that UHL in children is particularly detrimental in speech-based maskers (Reeder et al, 2015). Further motivation for considering children’s performance in the presence of informational masking is based on recent data from Hillock-Dunn et al (2015).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Based on the results of Reeder at al (2015), this association was predicted for attenuation at 500 Hz, but not at the other frequencies. Without correcting for multiple comparisons, the two-tailed bivariate correlation between children’s SRM and attenuation values at 500 Hz was statistically significant in the two-talker masker for the simUHL/msk-contra listening condition (r = −.609, p = .047), but not in the other masker conditions ( p ≥ .283).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…There are relatively few data pertinent to SRM in school-age children with permanent sensorineural UHL, but available data indicate reduced benefit of target/masker spatial separation and poorer speech recognition overall for children with UHL (e.g., Bess et al 1986; Bovo et al 1988; Hartvig et al 1989; Kenworthy et al 1990; Updike 1994; Lieu et al 2010; Noh & Park 2012; Lieu et al 2013; Reeder et al 2015). For example, Reeder et al (2015) reported that 7- to 16-year-olds with moderately-severe to profound sensorineural UHL performed worse than age-matched peers with normal hearing on a range of tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Reeder et al (2015) reported that 7- to 16-year-olds with moderately-severe to profound sensorineural UHL performed worse than age-matched peers with normal hearing on a range of tasks. These tasks included: monosyllabic word recognition in quiet and four-talker babble, sentence recognition in spatially diffuse restaurant noise, and spondee recognition in quiet, single-talker speech, and multitalker babble presented from 0 ° , +90 ° , or −90 ° azimuth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Spatial Release From Masking in Children: Effects of Simulated Unilateral Hearing Loss

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to determine the effect of an acute simulated unilateral hearing loss on children’s spatial release from masking in two-talker speech and speech-shaped noise, and 2) to develop a procedure to be used in future studies that will assess spatial release from masking in children who have permanent unilateral hearing loss. There were three main predictions. First, spatial release from masking was expected to be larger in two-talker speech than speech-shaped noise. Second, simulated unilateral hearing loss was expected to worsen performance in all listening conditions, but particularly in the spatially separated two-talker speech masker. Third, spatial release from masking was expected to be smaller for children than for adults in the two-talker masker. Design Participants were 12 children (8.7 to 10.9 yrs) and 11 adults (18.5 to 30.4 yrs) with normal bilateral hearing. Thresholds for 50%-correct recognition of Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentences were measured adaptively in continuous two-talker speech or speech-shaped noise. Target sentences were always presented from a loudspeaker at 0° azimuth. The masker stimulus was either co-located with the target or spatially separated to +90° or −90° azimuth. Spatial release from masking was quantified as the difference between thresholds obtained when the target and masker were co-located and thresholds obtained when the masker was presented from +90° or − 90°. Testing was completed both with and without a moderate simulated unilateral hearing loss, created with a foam earplug and supra-aural earmuff. A repeated-measures design was used to compare performance between children and adults, and performance in the no-plug and simulated-unilateral-hearing-loss conditions. Results All listeners benefited from spatial separation of target and masker stimuli on the azimuth plane in the no-plug listening conditions; this benefit was larger in two-talker speech than in speech-shaped noise. In the simulated-unilateral-hearing-loss conditions, a positive spatial release from masking was observed only when the masker was presented ipsilateral to the simulated unilateral hearing loss. In the speech-shaped noise masker, spatial release from masking in the no-plug condition was similar to that obtained when the masker was presented ipsilateral to the simulated unilateral hearing loss. In contrast, in the two-talker speech masker, spatial release from masking in the no-plug condition was much larger than that obtained when the masker was presented ipsilateral to the simulated unilateral hearing loss. When either masker was presented contralateral to the simulated unilateral hearing loss, spatial release from masking was negative. This pattern of results was observed for both children and adults, although children performed more poorly overall. Conclusions Children and adults with normal bilateral hearing experience greater spatial release from masking for a two-talker speech than a speech-shaped noise masker. Testing in a two-talker speec...

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spatial Release From Masking in Children: Effects of Simulated Unilateral Hearing Loss

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reeder et al reported that children with unilateral hearing loss have significant differences from their normal-hearing peers in terms of speech perception and localization [44]. Children with unilateral hearing loss have been shown to have worse language skills than their siblings with normal hearing [45].…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis and Management of Congenital Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Chen

Oghalai

2016

Curr Treat Options Peds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Opinion statement Hearing loss is the most common sensory disorder in the USA. The diagnosis of congenital hearing loss starts with newborn hearing screening, which is best performed with auditory brainstem evoked responses in order to avoid the risk of missing auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. A careful history and physical exam can occasionally help reveal the etiology for congenital hearing loss. Imaging studies, either CT temporal bones or MRI of the internal auditory canals without gadolinium, and genetic testing, in particular for connexin 26, connexin 30, and Pendred syndrome, are the most useful diagnostic tests. Management of congenital hearing loss involves early fitting of amplification. Early cochlear implantation, preferably before 2 years of age, should be strongly considered for children with bilateral severe hearing loss.

show abstract

Assessment of Receptive and Expressive Language Skills Among Young Children With Prelingual Single-Sided Deafness Managed With Early Cochlear Implantation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Pediatric single-sided deafness (SSD) can seriously affect development, causing impaired spatial hearing skills, speech-language delays, and academic underachievement. Early cochlear implantation likely improves hearing-related outcomes, but its association with language development remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To investigate whether early cochlear implantation is associated with language outcomes for children with prelingual SSD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe Cochlear Implant for Children and One Deaf Ear study was initiated in 2015 and recruited participants at 4 academic hospitals in Flanders, Belgium, through 2019. This cohort study included 3 groups of children aged 2 to 5 years: children with SSD and a cochlear implant, children with SSD without a cochlear implant, and a control group with normal hearing. Language and hearing skills were assessed 1 to 2 times per year until the age of 10 years.Study completion rates were high (82%). Data analysis was performed from October to December 2020. EXPOSURE Unilateral cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESLongitudinal vocabulary, grammar, and receptive language scores. The implanted group was hypothesized to outperform the nonimplanted group on all language tests. RESULTS During the recruitment period, 47 children with prelingual SSD without additional disabilities were identified at the participating hospitals. Fifteen of the 34 children with an intact auditory nerve received a cochlear implant (44%, convenience sample). Sixteen of the remaining children were enrolled in the SSD control group (50%). Data from 61 children (mean [SD] age at the time of enrollment, 2.08 [1.34] years; 26 girls [42%]) were included in the analysis: 15 children with SSD and a cochlear implant, 16 children with SSD without a cochlear implant, and 30 children with normal hearing. Children with SSD and a cochlear implant performed in line with their peers with normal hearing with regard to grammar. In contrast, children with SSD without a cochlear implant had worse grammar scores than the group with implants (−0.76; 95% CI, −0.31 to −1.21; P = .004) and the group with normal hearing (−0.53; 95% CI, −0.91 to −0.15; P = .02). The 3 groups had similar vocabulary and receptive language abilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that early cochlear implantation is associated with normal grammar development in young children with prelingual SSD. Although further follow-up will reveal the long-term outcomes of the cochlear implant for other skills, the (continued) Key Points Question Is early cochlear implantation associated with language development in children with prelingual single-sided deafness (SSD)? Findings In this longitudinal cohort study of 61 children, children with SSD with a cochlear implant achieved significantly better scores for grammar than children with SSD without an implant (difference in score, 0.76), similar to scores for children with bilateral normal hearing. Vocabulary and receptive language scores did not differ for the 3 groups. Me...

show abstract

Quantification of Speech-in-Noise and Sound Localisation Abilities in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss and Comparison to Normal Hearing Peers

Cited by 81 publications

References 29 publications

Spatial Release From Masking in Children: Effects of Simulated Unilateral Hearing Loss

Spatial Release From Masking in Children: Effects of Simulated Unilateral Hearing Loss

Diagnosis and Management of Congenital Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Assessment of Receptive and Expressive Language Skills Among Young Children With Prelingual Single-Sided Deafness Managed With Early Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About