Melbourne School of Health Sciences Collected Works - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemBilateral cochlear implants in children(Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2011-02-28)
-
ItemPerformance of Toddlers, Children and Young Adults Using Unilateral or Bilateral Cochlear Implants on a Left versus Right Loudspeaker Identification Task(KARGER, 2011)Thirty-six participants with bilateral cochlear implants aged 1–19 years completed a left versus right loudspeaker identification task. The majority performed at chance in the unilateral condition (n = 24) and significantly above chance in the bilateral condition (n = 28). Cluster analysis identified three groups; one group performed above chance in both conditions and was older at second implant and older at testing, with longer delay between implants. There were no such differences between the group performing at chance in both conditions and the group which scored highly in the bilateral condition only, thus demonstrating a bilateral benefit. Unilateral, but not bilateral, scores were correlated with age at second and at first implant, time between implants, and age at testing. Bilateral benefit was negatively correlated with age at second implant, time between implants and age at testing. Co-linearity made it difficult to isolate the relationships with demographic factors, though age at testing may have had the most influence on unilateral scores. Spatial hearing skills with bilateral implants cannot be predicted for individuals.
-
ItemAdapting to bilateral cochlear implants: early post-operative device use by children receiving sequential or simultaneous implants at or before 3.5 years.(Informa UK Limited, 2012-05)OBJECTIVE: To classify adaptation difficulties, or lack thereof, experienced by a clinical population of young bilateral cochlear implant recipients. METHOD: Forty-six of the first 48 children sequentially or simultaneously implanted at ≤3.5 years at the Melbourne Clinic participated. Classification into categories was based on daily use of both implants at 2 months post-switch-on, with follow-up information obtained at 12 months. RESULTS: The 37 Category 1 children wore both implants full time at 2 months, and 35 still did so at 12 months. The two Category 2 children used both implants 4 hours daily at 2 months, but achieved full-time use within 12 months. The five Category 3 children used both implants for ≤1 hour, with only three achieving full-time use within 12 months. The two Category 4 children did not use two implants at 2 months, and one still did not wear both implants at 12 months. There were weak/modest but significant relationships between category and each of time between implants and age at bilateral implantation. DISCUSSION: Ninety-five percent of simultaneously and 70% of sequentially implanted children demonstrated full-time use within 2 months, and nearly all continued to do so at 12 months. Full-time use maximizes opportunities to develop listening skills. Monitoring device use is necessary for all children, especially when significant change occurs. For those experiencing difficulty in adapting, bilateral implant use usually increased over 12 months. Pre-operative counselling must include discussion of possible adaptation difficulties and raise the potential negative influence of age at bilateral implantation and time between implants.
-
ItemMeasuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing.(Informa UK Limited, 2013-06)OBJECTIVES: To compare the listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults using implants versus their peers with normal hearing when these two groups are achieving similar speech perception scores. The study also aimed to compare listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with bilateral cochlear implants when using two implants versus one. METHODS: Eight participants with bilateral cochlear implants and eight with normal hearing aged 10-22 years were included. Using a dual-task paradigm, participants repeated consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented in noise and performed a visual matching task. Signal-to-noise ratios were set individually to ensure the word perception task was challenging but manageable for all. Reduced performance on the visual task in the dual-task condition relative to the single-task condition was indicative of the effort expended on the listening task. RESULTS: The cochlear implant group, when using bilateral implants, expended similar levels of listening effort to the normal hearing group when the two groups were achieving similar speech perception scores. For three individuals with cochlear implants, and the group, listening effort was significantly reduced with bilateral compared to unilateral implants. DISCUSSION: The similar amount of listening effort expended by the two groups indicated that a higher signal-to-noise ratio overcame limitations in the auditory information received or processed by the participants with implants. This study is the first to objectively compare listening effort using two versus one cochlear implant. The results provide objective evidence that reduced listening effort is a benefit that some individuals gain from bilateral cochlear implants.