ASSESSMENT OF SPEECH DEVELOPMENT IN SUBJECTS WITH PRELINGUAL HEARING IMPAIRMENT PRIOR TO OR AFTER COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION
Abstract
Hearing is one of the most important features that every human being possesses, one of the five senses along with sight, smell, taste, and touch. This function is accomplished owing to the complex mechanism of the sensory organ for hearing, the ear, and its coordination with the nervous system. The impairment of the cochlear normal function, impairment of the transduction of the mechanical acoustic signal in the synaptic activity of the auditory nerve leads to disorders of the complex ear mechanism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the speech development, that is, to assess the speech-voice development by using the Test for recognition of simple questions in the period of 6, 12 and 24 months. The results of the test for development of hearing perception showed progression during the examined period. Subjects in whom cochlear implant was placed in the younger age showed better results at the Test for recognition of simple questions and they recognized the meaning of a larger number of questions. This was statistically confirmed with calculated correlations between the age when the intervention was realized and the number of perceived simple questions at 6, 12 and 24 months post-implantation. All three correlations were negative and statistically significant.
Keywords: impaired hearing, cochlear implant, hearing perception, speech development
https://doi.org/10.55302/JMS2141118l
References
1976; 5:127.
2.Clark GM. The University of Melburne Nucleus multielectrode coclear implant Adv Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1987;
38:1-129.
3.Clark GM. A multiple electrode array for cochlear implant. J Laryngol Otol. 1976; 90: 623- 627.
4.Clark GM. A multiple electrode intracochlear implant forchildrenArchOtorynolaryngol.1977; 113:825-828
5.Clark GM. Desigen and fabrication of the banded electrode array. AnnNew York Acad Sci. 1983; 405:191-201
6.Patrick JF, Clark GM. The Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 1991; 12[Supp11]:3S-9S.
7.Gantz BJ. Cochlear implants: an overview. Adv Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg;1987; 1:171-200.
8.Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Knutson JF. Evaluation of fibe different cochlear implantde signs: audiologic assessment and predictor of performance. Laringoscope. 1988; 10: 1100-
1106.
9.Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Woodford G, Tye-Murray N, Frauf- Bertschu H. Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired prelinqual deafness in children: Five-year follow up. Am J Otol. 1994;15: 1-8.
10.Gantz BJ, Ryler RS, Woodford GG. Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired deafness in children: five-years follow-up. Am J Otol. 1994;2 [ Supp11]:1-34. 55. 11.
11.Clark GM. Cochlear implants: Future research directions. Am J Otol. 1995; 22-27.
12.Hartmann R, Shepard R, Heid S, Klinke R. Response of the primary auditory cortex to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in the congenitally deaf white cat. Hearing Res. 1997;112:115–133.
13.Klinke R, Hartmann R, Heid S, Tillein J, Kral A. Plastic changes in the auditory cortex of congenitally deaf cats following cochlear implantation. Audiology Neuro-Otol. 2001; 6:203– 206.
14.Klinke R, Kral A, Heid S, Tillein J, Hartmann R. Recruitment of the auditory cortex in congenitally deaf cats by long-term cochlear electrostimulation. Science. 1999;285:1729–1733.
15. Kral A, Hartmann R, Tillein J, Heid S, Klinke R. Congenital auditory deprivation reduces synaptic activity within the auditory cortex in a layer-specific manner. Cerebral Cortex 2000;10:714–726.
16.Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Zebri M. Temporal representation with cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1997;18 30-34.
17.Wilson BS. Engineering Design of Cochlear Implants. In: Zeng FG, Popeer AN, Fay RR, editors. Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing. New York: Springer; 2004. pp.14.
18.Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT. Wolford RD. Eddington DK. Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature. 1991; 352;236-238.
